¶1concurring.
¶2I jom m the result of the opmion and write separately only to respectfully disagree with the court’s application of the de novo review of a trial court’s speedy trial analysis as adopted by this court m Clarke v. State, 928 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. filed) (op. on reh’g). I believe an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Clarke, 928 *794S.W.2d at 723 (Livingston, J., concurring); State v. Perkins, 911 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.) (applying abuse of discretion standard), overruled by implication in Clarke, 928 S.W.2d at 713.