With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 120 N.M. 68, 898 P.2d 120 (1995), we observed that a literal application of the six-month rule “will be set aside only when there is an event extending pretrial activity to the mutual benefit of the parties, or where there is an attempt by the State to circumvent the rule without justification.” Applying a common-sense interpretation to the rule in question, we conclude that the filing of the interlocutory appeal by Defendant on August 22, 1994, interrupted the running of the six-month rule, and the six-month time period was triggered anew on October 14, 1994, when the Court of Appeals’ mandate disposing of Defendant’s interlocutory appeal was filed in the district court. NMRA 5- 604(B)(4); see also State v. Sanchez, 109 N.M. 313, 316-17, 785 P.2d 224, 227-28 (1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446, 448-49, 774

A: holding sixmonth rule suspended based on parties agreement that proceedings be held in abeyance pending ruling by court on plea bargain
B: holding defendant did not prove an enforceable agreement only that there was some discussion of a plea bargain
C: holding sixmonth rule applies to youthful offender proceedings
D: holding that trial court acted within its authority in rejecting a plea bargain in a capital case
A.