P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that her conviction must be reversed because her state and federal speedy trial rights were violated due to the People’s almost three-year delay in serving her with an arrest warrant. We conclude that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from the delay in her arrest. In Scherling v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 493, 504, our Supreme Court explained the differences between the state and federal right to a speedy trial. “[U]nder California as well as federal law, the right to a speedy trial clearly attaches after an arrest or the filing of an indictment or information. [Citation.] [¶] Unlike federal law, however, this state has extended the right to the preindictment and prearrest stage, holding that it attaches under article I, section 15, of our Constitution after a complaint has been filed. [Citations.] But the consequence of a violation depends upon the stage at which a violation of the right occurs. The right to a speedy trial following the filing of an indictment or information and the time limitations applicable thereto are set forth by statute ([Pen. Code,] § 1382) and a violation of the statute is presumed to be prejudicial.…