16 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Speedy Trial"'.
J. Powers finds that decision must be withheld in defendant's appeal from his conviction for possessing drugs and using drug paraphernalia based on a cache of drugs discovered during a traffic stop because the record is inadequate to assess speedy trial claims. The matter must be remitted for the lower court to determine whether the initial certification on disclosure was premature in light of subsequent additions to the witness list.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Powers, Filed On: July 25, 2024, Case #: 113688, Categories: criminal Procedure, Drug Offender, speedy Trial
J. Welbaum finds the lower court erroneously denied defendant's motion to dismiss a drug trafficking indictment on speedy trial grounds. The state's failure to discover and turn over bodycam footage of a previous arrest, which eventually led to a continuance and suppression hearing, should not have tolled the speedy trial clock. Additionally, another 90-day delay after the suppression hearing was entirely unnecessary, as the parties had already agreed on a trial date, and when those delays are factored in, the state failed to prosecute defendant within the 270-day statutory limit. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welbaum, Filed On: June 7, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-2289, Categories: criminal Procedure, Drug Offender, speedy Trial
J. Siler finds the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to dismiss fraud and identity theft charges for speedy trial violations. The 36-day delay between the trial court's competency evaluation order and defendant's transport to a facility for the evaluation violated his speedy trial rights, regardless of the fact the government did not know which facility would be used when the 10-day transportation clock began to run. Therefore, defendant's convictions on fraud and identity theft charges must be vacated and the case will be remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the indictment will be dismissed with or without prejudice. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Siler, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 22-3797, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial, Identity Theft
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Lobrano finds that the juvenile court should not have dismissed the state’s delinquency petition against a juvenile for not timely commencing the adjudication hearing. In this case, the failure of the juvenile to appear at the adjudication hearing was beyond the state’s control because the delay was caused by the failure of the detention facility to comply with the writs to present the juvenile in court for trial. Further, the state communicated with the detention facility before trial to confirm receipt of service of the writ of habeas corpus issued by the state. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Lobrano, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 2024-CA-0031, Categories: criminal Procedure, Juvenile Law, speedy Trial
J. Pitman finds that the trial court properly released defendant, who was charged with murder, without bail because La. C. Cr. P. art. 701 relieves a defendant from his bail obligation on the running of the time period for speedy trial. However, defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated because there is no time limitation on a murder charge, and, in this case, the length of the delay did not prejudice defendant since there was a detainer in Mississippi requiring his transfer to serve an outstanding sentence. Affirmed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Pitman, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 55,609-KA, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, speedy Trial
J. Emas finds that, in light of the state's motion for clarification, a new opinion is necessary to replace a previous opinion in defendant's speedy-trial dispute in her case in which she faces charges for fleeing the scene of an accident while driving under in the influence. Given the facts of the case and the applicable rules of criminal procedure, it cannot be said that defendant's petition for a writ of prohibition filed with the county court claiming she was denied a speedy trial within 90 days of her being taken into custody was an appeal that technically "delayed" her trial. Defendant's second writ of prohibition filed with the appellate court is granted, and the case is remanded for final discharge of defendant's misdemeanor charges.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Emas, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-1702, Categories: criminal Procedure, Dui, speedy Trial
J. Yohalem finds the trial court improperly refused to hear and summarily denied defendant's motion to dismiss drug charges on speedy trial grounds. Although the motion was filed on the eve of trial, the court had not imposed a scheduling order on the parties and filings regarding the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant must be heard absent intentional misconduct; therefore, the case will be remanded to allow the trial court to consider the merits of the motion. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Yohalem, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: A-1-CA-40312, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial
J. Easterbrook finds that the lower court properly rejected defendant's claim he was denied a speedy trial due to the general order that suspended criminal jury trials from March 2020 through April 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Social and epidemiological considerations permitted the delay of criminal jury trials during the pandemic and district judges may rely on institutional findings such as the general order without making defendant-specific findings in such circumstances. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Easterbrook, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 22-2470, Categories: criminal Procedure, Jury, speedy Trial
J. Medina finds the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the state's appeal of a magistrate's suppression of all prosecution witnesses during defendant's DUI case. The state filed the appeal before the magistrate court entered a decision on the merits of the motion. However, the district court was required to conduct an analysis of any possible speedy trial violations before it dismissed the charges refiled by the state, and so the case will be remanded. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Medina, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: A-1-CA-40849, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial, Jurisdiction
J. Atkins finds that the trial court should not have denied the state's motion to continue trial in a sexual abuse of a minor action. In this case, the trial court did not take into consideration that the state's witnesses were not available on the trial date. One witness was the forensic nurse practitioner who completed a report in the matter, and the other witness was an expert in child sexual abuse forensic examinations, child sexual abuse, and trauma. Further, a continuance would not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Atkins, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 2024-K-0034, Categories: criminal Procedure, Sex Offender, speedy Trial
J. Lipinsky finds the trial court erroneously granted the state's motion for a continuance in a juvenile's arson and burglary case. The juvenile court must apply the same standards as those used in adult court when considering a motion for a continuance past the speedy trial deadline. The prosecutor requested the continuance because of the alleged unavailability of witnesses during Thanksgiving week, but because she failed to include specific witnesses who would be absent or why their testimony was crucial to the state's case, the continuance should not have been granted and the juvenile's order of delinquency will be vacated. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lipinsky, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: 2024COA4, Categories: criminal Procedure, Juvenile Law, speedy Trial
J. Halligan finds that the lower court improperly upheld defendant's conviction for harassing his mother even though not all pertinent evidence had been turned over when the prosecution filed a certificate of compliance in discovery. State-enacted reforms more closely link discovery and trial-readiness, while belated disclosure requires dismissal on speedy-trial grounds, especially that caused by the lack of due diligence. Reversed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Halligan, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 92, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial, Discovery
Per curiam, the court of appeals finds that the state's appeal should be dismissed as brought from the dismissal of defendant's trial, which concerned a single traffic violation, for lack of compliance with the speedy trial statute. The newly amended speedy trial statute does not apply to accusatory instruments involving only traffic infractions, but the prosecution, which agreed in the lower court that such does apply, cannot now attempt to reinstate the action almost two years following dismissal.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: 100 SSM 7, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial
J. Donnelly finds the appeals court erroneously overturned the trial court's decision to grant defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. He satisfied notice requirements under Ohio law when he delivered a request for disposition of the criminal charges to the warden of the facility where he was incarcerated on other convictions. Although the warden failed to deliver any of defendant's numerous requests to the relevant prosecuting attorney or trial court, defendant complied with Ohio law when he sent notice to the warden and, therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the case on speedy trial grounds. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Donnelly, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3647, Categories: criminal Procedure, speedy Trial