OPINION

The primary issues in this appeal concern interpretation of Criminal Rule 45, Alaska’s speedy trial rule.

■ Appellant John Cooksey was arrested on October 5, 1972, and charged with the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon. On October 27, 1972, an indictment against Cooksey was returned and arraignment was held on October 30, 1972.

Cooksey next appeared in superior court on November 21, 1972, at which time he entered a plea of not guilty. Trial was set for the week of February 20, 1973, in order to permit psychiatric evaluation of Cooksey. Cooksey filed a waiver of his speedy trial right under Criminal Rule 45 until that date.1

Cooksey was examined by Dr. David Boyd, and Dr. Boyd’s report of psychiatric evaluation, dated January 5, 1973, was received by defense counsel on February 1. Prior to the receipt of this report, however, Dr. Boyd was killed in an airplane accident. In view of the doctor’s death, defense counsel considered it necessary to file a renewed application for psychiatric evaluation. Consequently, the February 20 trial date had to be cancelled, and in order to obviate any Criminal Rule 45 problem which might arise from the additional delay occasioned by this second psychiatric evaluation, Cooksey, on February 22, 1973, *1254executed a second waiver which provided in part:

Defendant waives his right of speedy trial from the date February 20, 1973, until such time as the psychiatric evaluation can be completed and his case re-calendared for trial pursuant to normal calendaring procedures followed by the Superior Court of the State of Alaska.

Cooksey was subsequently examined by Dr. Langdon of the Langdon Psychiatric Clinic, who completed his report on May 24, 1973. The Langdon Clinic apparently mailed copies of this report to the superior court, the district attorney’s office, and the public defender’s office, with the latter two offices receiving copies of the report on May 29, 1973.

The records of the superior court indicate that it did not receive a copy of Dr. Langdon’s psychiatric report until July 13, 1973. At that time a hearing was set for July 17 to determine Cooksey’s competence to proceed to trial. After the hearing and on the basis of Dr. Langdon’s report, Cooksey was found competent to stand trial.

On August 8, 1973, the superior court set September 4 as the trial date and imposed an August 28 deadline by which Cooksey was to submit any motions based upon alleged violations of the speedy trial provisions of Criminal Rule 45. Thereafter, Cooksey filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based upon a purported violation of that rule. After oral argument, the superior court denied Cooksey’s motion to dismiss.

On September 4 Cooksey changed his not guilty plea to nolo contendere to the assault with a dangerous weapon charge. This plea was presented to the superior court as a negotiated plea, pursuant to Criminal Rule 11(e).2 The plea negotiations called for imposition of a five-year sentence of imprisonment, with two and one-half years suspended upon probation, credit given for time already served, and parole eligibility left to the discretion of the parole board. As a further element of the negotiations, Cooksey expressly reserved the right to appeal the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for violation of the speedy trial provisions of Criminal Rule 45. The superior court approved the negotiated plea; Cooksey was sentenced in accordance with its terms, and this appeal followed.3

*1255Before reaching the merits of the speedy trial issue presented by this appeal, it is necessary to dispose of a threshold procedural question; namely, whether a defendant is entitled to appeal following conviction upon a plea of nolo contendere.

A plea of guilty is generally regarded as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in a case.4 The plea provides a means by which the defendant may acknowledge his guilt and manifest a willingness to assume responsibility for his actions. A plea of nolo contendere, like a guilty plea, is both an admission of guilt and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects.5

There are, however, two characteristics of the case at bar that merit special consideration. First, an integral part of the negotiated plea which was accepted by the superior court was the stipulation that Cooksey retained the right to appeal the speedy trial issue despite his plea of nolo contendere. Second, the applicability of the speedy trial provision of Criminal Rule 45 to the case at bar was fully litigated at the pre-trial hearing held on Cooksey’s motion to dismiss.

United States v. Caraway, 474 F.2d 25, vacated on other grounds, 483 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1973), is similar to the case at bar in these two characteristics. In Caraway, the two defendants were charged with the importation of six pounds of marijuana. Both pleaded not guilty to the charge and sought by pre-trial motion to suppress on constitutional grounds all the evidence seized. After denial of the suppression motion, both defendants were granted permission to enter nolo conten-dere pleas, with the express understanding that they would be able to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a thoughtful opinion authored by Judge Rives, noted that in such a situation the court “felt constrained” to honor the agreement between the lower court and the defendant.6

The Fifth Circuit articulated two reasons for recognizing the express agreement for a limited appeal right. First, the Fifth Circuit was reluctant to establish a rigid rule requiring a defendant to undergo the costly and futile ordeal of a complete trial, when the state could easily prove its case by evidence that was alleged to have been *1256illegally obtained and by no other evidence, and the defendant merely seeks to preserve a single, non-jurisdictional issue. Second, expressly conditioning á nolo con-tendere plea on a limited right to appellate review demonstrates that the plea was not so “intelligently” entered as to waive the non-jurisdictional defect sought to be reviewed.7

The entering of a plea by an accused is a critical stage in the criminal proceeding. A plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere acts as a waiver of many constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Accordingly, courts have been very concerned that a plea of guilty or nolo be both voluntary and intelligently entered.8 If the plea does not possess both attributes, then it is generally not regarded as valid and binding. If a nolo contendere plea, expressly conditioned upon a limited right of appeal as it was in the present case, is adopted by the trial court the failure of the judicial system to respect that express condition would likely render the nolo plea unintelligent and invalid.

Additionally, the only issue sought to be reviewed by Cooksey is the trial court’s interpretation and administration of the four-month speedy trial provisions of Criminal Rule 45. This is a question which was fully argued at a pre-trial hearing. If Cooksey had prevailed, he would have been entitled to dismissal of the indictment, and the state would have been barred from further prosecution for the offense of assault with a dangerous weapon.9 Since violation of the speedy trial rule was the only specification of error that Cooksey intended to urge on appeal, it would be wasteful of legal resources to require that Cooksey undergo a full trial for the mere sake of preserving the right to appeal the speedy trial ruling of the superior court.10

*1257In light of these two circumstances, we feel compelled to decide the merits of Cooksey’s claim on the speedy trial issue in the case at bar.11

We now turn to the speedy trial issue. Cooksey was arrested on October 5, 1972, and was indicted on October 27. Both Cooksey and the state are agreed that the four-month period under Criminal Rule 45 began running as of October 5. On November 21, Cooksey filed a waiver of his right to a speedy trial until February 20, 1973, so that he could secure a psychiatric evaluation prior to trial. On February 20, Cooksey once again filed a waiver of his speedy trial right under Rule 45 until a second psychiatric evaluation could be completed and the case “recalendared for trial pursuant to normal calendaring procedures followed by the Superior Court.”

This second psychiatric report was completed by Dr. Langdon on May 24, 1973, and copies were received by the district attorney and the public defender on May 29. The following facts concerning the mailing and receipt of this second psychiatric report were elicited at the hearing on Cook-sey’s motion to dismiss.12 The Langdon Clinic apparently mailed copies of the psychiatric report to the district attorney, the public defender, and the superior court at the same time. In the first part of July, the district attorney, having received his copy of the report on May 29, noted that the court had not yet scheduled any action in Cooksey’s case with regard to the report and a competency hearing. The district attorney contacted the superior court to inquire about the case, and the court indicated that it had not yet received a copy of the psychiatric report. A thorough search for the report was conducted, but the search failed to disclose that the court had ever received Dr. Langdon’s report. The clinic subsequently mailed an additional copy which was received by the superior court on July 13, and a competency hearing was held on July 17. Cooksey was found to be competent to stand trial, and on Au*1258gust 8 the court set a trial date of September 4. The crucial period as far as determination of the four-month speedy trial rule is concerned is the period between May 29 and July 17.13

Cooksey contends that all but 7-10 days of the May 29 to July 17 period must be included in the Rule 45 four-month computation, and that if this is done the state has clearly failed to bring Cooksey to trial within the required four months. Cooksey argues that his waiver of February 20

should be construed to extend only up to such time when, after receipt of the second psychiatric examination, the case would have come before the court pursuant to normal calendaring procedures for setting of a new date for trial.

Cooksey concedes that even without his waiver the period of February 20 to May 29 would be an excluded period when computing the crucial four-month period. Criminal Rule 45(d)(1) provides that the period of delay resulting from examinations and hearings on the defendant’s competency are to be excluded when computing the time for trial.14 Cooksey maintains, however, that most of the May 29 to July 17 delay is attributable to the state rather than to his request for the second psychiatric evaluation for two reasons: first, the superior court failed on or about May 29 to assure proper receipt and filing of the report mailed to it, and second, the district attorney failed to take adequate precautions once it received a copy of the report to assure prompt calendaring of the case.

Cooksey’s initial argument is that the facts which establish the mailing of the second psychiatric report by the Langdon Clinic and actual receipt of the report by the district attorney and public defender on May 29 create a presumption that the superior court likewise received a copy of the report on or about May 29. Such a presumption would mean, argues Cooksey, that the four-month time period would recommence running within 7 to 10 days of May 29.

Evidence as to the proper mailing of a letter does create a presumption that the letter was received by the addressee.15 However, the presumption created is rebuttable.16 In the case at bar, the superior court also had before it evidence of an exhaustive search undertaken in the superior court for the psychiatric report and the failure of that search to reveal any indication that the report had ever been received by the court. This evidence served to rebut the initial presumption of receipt created by the evidence concerning the mailing of the report. An issue of fact thus presented itself for resolu*1259tion by the trier of fact. The trial judge concluded that the report had never been received by the superior court. We do not hold this finding to be clearly erroneous.17

Cooksey argues in the alternative that, even if there is no presumption of receipt of the report, the four-month computation must begin within 7 to 10 days of May 29 since it is uncontested that the district attorney received and perused a copy of that report on that date. Cooksey asserts that it is well established that the prosecution must share with the court the responsibility for assuring that a case is timely calendared. Given the particular circumstances of the case at bar, we cannot agree.

Cooksey places reliance upon this court’s decisions in Glasgow v. State, 469 P.2d 682 (Alaska 1970), and Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946 (Alaska 1971), in arguing that the district attorney shared responsibility with the court to see that the case was promptly recalendared following his receipt of the psychiatric report. In both Glasgow and Rutherford, we held that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not conditioned upon his demand for compliance by the state with the speedy trial provision. We stated in Rutherford-.

[W]e feel it is too much to expect of human nature that a defendant must demand a speedy trial to receive one when he has no assurance as to the outcome of trial. The uncertainty as to the verdict can bring indecision to the innocent as well as the guilty. While trial should vindicate the innocent, such a defendant may nevertheless be apprehensive about the outcome, for even his innocence has not prevented him from reaching the trial stage of the criminal process. Thus, the innocent defendant is presented with two unhappy alternatives: either not to demand trial, hoping the state will not prosecute, or to demand trial, hoping to vindicate himself in spite of his fear of being found guilty.

Furthermore, under our system of criminal justice, it is the prosecution which initiates a case and which has the power of going forward with it. In the exercise of this power, it is the duty of the public prosecutor to observe the constitution. 486 P.2d at 950. (footnote omitted)

We do not find the general principle enunciated in Rutherford to be determinative of the speedy trial question raised by Cooksey in this appeal’. Here we must determine whether the period of delay occasioned by Cooksey’s request for a competency report and hearing could be computed as ending within 7 to 10 days of May 29, inasmuch as the district attorney received the psychiatric report on that date. Cook-sey had twice requested delays in his trial date so he could secure a psychiatric examination, and the court accommodated his request each time. On May 29, both Cook-sey’s counsel and the district attorney received copies of the psychiatric report on Cooksey, but the superior court did not receive a copy.18 Because it was the public defender who requested the delay in the trial date, we think that the responsibility rested as much with him as with the district attorney to see that the psychiatric report was brought to the attention of the superior court so the case could be recalendared.19 Consequently, Criminal *1260Rule 45(d)(1) excludes the entire period of delay from February 20 to July 17 from the four-month computation, inasmuch as the entire delay period resulted from defendant’s request for a psychiatric evaluation and hearing. To hold otherwise would tend to transform the speedy trial rule into a hyper-technical device to be manipulated by an accused in order to escape the administration of justice.20

Further, we note that the speedy trial waiver signed by Cooksey on February 20 provided that the right to a speedy ⅛⅛1 was waived until the psychiatric evaluation could be completed and the case re-calendared for trial “pursuant to normal calendaring procedures followed by the Superior Court.” 21 Normal calendaring procedure in the Anchorage superior court, as we mentioned earlier, is for the clerk of that court to recalendar a case relatively promptly after receipt of the psychiatric report. The district attorney does not normally bear recalendaring' responsibility. Thus, the plain meaning of the language of Cooksey’s waiver leads us to the same conclusion that since the report was not received by the court until July 13, the period of May 29 to July 17 is an excluded period.

Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s finding that Cooksey was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial under the terms of Criminal Rule 45.

Affirmed.

(concurring).

I agree that failure to honor the condition that appellant be allowed a limited right to appeal on the speedy trial issue would render his nolo contendere plea unintelligent and involuntary and require that it be vacated. Accordingly, I join in the court’s decision to grant review on this issue and specifically concur with the court’s resolution of it. However, I reach this decision only because I view the speedy trial issue to be an allegation of a jurisdictional defect. Hence, this case falls within the general rule that a plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not bar appeal of a jurisdictional issue.1

When a defendant is not brought to trial within the 120-day period defined in Criminal Rule 45,2 the state is barred from further prosecution and the court is effectively deprived of jurisdiction over the offense set forth in the information or indictment.3 A claim that the 120-day pe*1261riod has been violated is thus akin to a claim that the indictment or information fails to state an offense,4 that the underlying statute is unconstitutional,5 or that prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations 6 — all claims of jurisdictional defects traditionally held to be appealable after pleas of guilty or nolo contendere. Hence, a plea of nolo contendere conditioned on the right to appeal an alleged 120-day rule violation is proper even under the prevailing view that pleas may be conditioned only upon the right to appeal jurisdictional issues.7

I recognize that there is a minority view that a plea conditioned upon a limited right to appeal certain non-jurisdictional issues should be condoned because it would be contrary to sound notions of judicial administration to require a defendant to undergo a costly and possibly lengthy trial when all but one issue could be quickly disposed of by a conditioned plea. However, analysis of the cases espousing this view reveals that, for the most part, the precise non-jurisdictional grounds which are proper subjects of conditioned pleas are usually set forth in a court rule or statute.8 In the absence of such a rule or statute,9 I am reluctant to burden the trial judge with the additional responsibility of determining without guidance whether a particular non-jurisdictional issue in a proposed conditioned plea would possibly render the plea unintelligent and involuntary. I would therefore adopt the majority view10 that accepting pleas of guilty or nolo contendere conditioned upon a limited right of appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds is prohibited.