Judging delay is one area where analysis under the due diligence doctrine remains relevant. Under the due diligence doctrine, the court looks to whether “reasonable investigative efforts [were] made to apprehend the person sought.” Peacock, 77 S.W.3d at 288. Per Peacock, such a requirement “helps a court determine whether the probationer cannot be found because he is trying to elude capture or because no one is looking for him,” and in the case of the latter “the State should not benefit by doing nothing meaningful to execute a capias.” The Court of Criminal Appeals has made clear that merely sending a letter to the Defendant’s home and uploading a warrant into the TCIC database does not constitute diligence on the part of the State. Peacock, 77 S.W.3d at 288-89. A probation who stays in state at a known address and known phone number, without probation coming to look for him and arrest him, has a great due diligence claim. A Texas resident who stays in the State at a known address and phone number also can show unreasonable delay if a warrant is issued at large for their arrest for a new crime and no effort is made to apprehend them. Leaving the state or country, however, can cause the speedy trial right to be tolled, and doing so is a factor that will hurt the defendant in a speedy trial analysis.