115 results for 'cat:"Speedy Trial"'.
J. Thomson finds the court of appeals improperly reversed defendant's murder and tampering with evidence convictions, received after he repeatedly stabbed his girlfriend. While the 69-month delay between defendant's indictment and trial on murder charges was presumptively prejudicial, it did not constitute a violation of his speedy trial rights. The majority of the delay was caused by numerous competency hearings, several of which were conducted after defendant was declared incompetent, at which point the state could not continue with a trial. Furthermore, his segregation from the general population in prison was a result of his own violent outbursts and, therefore, did not unduly prejudice him. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Thomson, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-37879, Categories: Competence, Murder, speedy Trial
J. Ryan finds defendant's conviction for gross sexual imposition in relation to the mail carrier he grabbed was not supported by sufficient evidence. The only force involved in the crime was the act itself; therefore, the conviction will be modified to sexual imposition. Furthermore, because the 2-year delay in prosecuting defendant's case was largely the result of pandemic-related continuances, his claim for speedy trial violations is meritless. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ryan, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4413, Categories: Evidence, Sex Offender, speedy Trial
J. Harrison finds the trial court improperly convicted defendant for kidnapping three corrections staff members, holding them in a maximum security prison. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and now appeals the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. A "dizzying" number of dates are involved and finds that a total of 909 days were not excluded for speedy trial purposes and, therefore, defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. Reversed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harrison , Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: CR-23-156, Categories: Kidnapping, speedy Trial
J. Egan withholds opinion in defendant's appeal from her conviction for weapon possession, assault, and reckless endangerment stemming from a shooting in which a man had been wounded. Defendant, who left the state soon after the incident, raised speedy trial concerns in sworn affidavits contending prosecutors did not seek her return from Virginia for five years despite knowing her whereabouts.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Egan, Filed On: November 22, 2023, Case #: 112094, Categories: Weapons, speedy Trial
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
[Consolidated.] Per curiam, the circuit finds that even though defendants did not travel outside the state of Michigan or make phone calls to anyone outside the state during the commission of their murder-for-hire crimes, the use of cell phones, considered instrumentalities of interstate commerce, allowed the government to charge and convict them under the federal murder-for-hire statute. Meanwhile, although more than 15 months passed between defendants' arrest and their subsequent trial, the delay did not violate their right to a speedy trial. The delay was caused, in large part, by an overcrowded docket that stemmed from the Covid-19 pandemic and extensions requested by their own attorneys to handle the large amount of discovery and the potential death penalty implications of their crimes. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 22-1698, Categories: Murder, speedy Trial, Jurisdiction
J. Welch finds the county court properly denied defendant’s motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds from charges of sexual assault of child. Defendant’s motion to continue constituted an effective waiver of his right to a speedy trial because the clock was not set to expire at that point, and the court’s granting of the motion resulted “in a ... delay that ... extended ... trial outside the speedy trial window.” Defendant’s assignment that excludable periods associated with delays caused by his own motions for continuances without admonishment fails. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welch, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: A-23-048, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, Child Victims
J. Duhart finds defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated when she was brought to trial more than 270 days after being charged with assault. Although the domestic violence charge added to her indictment arose from the same set of facts and did not restart the speedy trial clock, the multiple continuances filed by defendant and her attorney tolled the clock and rendered the delay reasonable. Meanwhile, the failure by defendant's attorney to object to police bodycam footage admitted at trial did not constitute ineffective assistance because the statements on the video were excited utterances made immediately after the fight between defendant and the victim and, therefore, any objection would have been overruled. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Duhart, Filed On: November 3, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4403, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, Domestic Violence, speedy Trial
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
Per curiam, the court of appeals finds that the lower court improperly dismissed claims contending defendant had not received a speedy trial on assault charges. Eight days of delay that had been charged to defendant should have been marked against the prosecution because defendant was not "without counsel" when he appeared with a legal aid substitute while the agency internally reassigned his case. Reversed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 99, Categories: speedy Trial
J. Pirtle finds the district court properly affirmed the county court’s denial of the DUI defendant’s motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds due to delays occurring from the forensic scientist’s lack of availability. Scheduling issues were identified well in advance of the original trial date and measures were taken to secure the availability of the expert’s testimony; due diligence was exercised. Defendant’s motion and subsequent appeal caused proceedings to extend beyond the six-month trial period, and so he has waived his right to a speedy trial. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: A-23-178, Categories: Dui, speedy Trial, Experts
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
J. Hull finds that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for charges related to possession of child porn. Defendant later entered a conditional guilty plea. Defendant was arrested in March 2020 but was not formally indicted by a grand jury until December 2020 due to delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The five pandemic-related continuances were not an abuse of discretion and were within the ends-of-justice exception to the Speedy Trial Act. Administrative orders did not preclude magistrate judges from granting ends-of-justice continuances due to difficulties presented by the pandemic. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Hull, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 22-11731, Categories: speedy Trial, Child Pornography
J. Lynch finds that defendant was improperly convicted of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle because his speedy trial rights were violated by various delays and adjournments, and counsel's failure to seek dismissal on speedy trial grounds constituted ineffective assistance. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Lynch, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 111252, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, speedy Trial
J. Hudson denies the juvenile offender’s petition for writ of certiorari or prohibition requesting relief after the circuit court denied his motions to dismiss the robbery, theft, drug possession and fleeing charges against him. The original charges were dismissed due to the state’s lack of readiness, but petitioner was arrested later on charges arising from the same conduct alleged in the dismissed juvenile-delinquency petition. Because there was no contemporaneous objection, the court did not commit an abuse of discretion by denying the motion to dismiss based on a speedy-trial violation. Petitioner did not argue that the time period between the filing of the first criminal information and his second arrest was not properly excluded from the speedy-trial calculation. His challenge to this particular period of time was not ruled on and is not preserved for review. Denied.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Hudson, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: CR-22-677, Categories: Drug Offender, Theft, speedy Trial
J. Golemon finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for felony evading and use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon. During the trial, defendant requested new counsel because his attorney wasn't Black. Defendant also attacked guards in the jail, receiving new charges. No resulting delays infringed on defendant's right to a speedy trial or his right to counsel. Defendant's complaints of counsel impairment do not weigh in favor of a finding of prejudice. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Golemon , Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00039-CR, Categories: Weapons, speedy Trial, Vehicle
J. Miller finds defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated by the delay between his arrest and trial on theft charges. Defense counsel requested a continuance during the Covid-19 pandemic and he was released from prison prior to his trial, which extended the speedy trial clock by more than 90 days. Meanwhile, defendant's maximum sentences were not contrary to law because the trial court made all required findings and the sentences were within the statutory range for his convictions. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3212, Categories: Sentencing, Theft, speedy Trial
J. Hoyle finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for aggravated sexual assault of his dating partner’s 11-year-old daughter. Though there were trial delays due to scheduling and Covid-19 concerns, defendant did not file a speedy trial motion until approximately 20 months after his arrest. He fails to demonstrate prejudice and the record does not support a finding that his ability to defend was compromised by delays. All testimony was corroborated and the court’s failure to conduct a reliability hearing was harmless. The child’s testimony is also supported by corroborating circumstantial evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hoyle, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 12-22-00180-CR, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, Child Victims
J. Kruger finds that a sex offender's due process rights have not been violated even though a trial on a petition to indefinitely recommit him to the state hospital as a sexually violent predator has been pending since 2007. Constitutional speedy trial rights apply to petitions to recommit sex offenders under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, but a trial has not yet been held on a petition to recommit the offender that was filed in 2007.
The length of the delay indicates that both the state and the trial court should have worked harder to ensure the offender's due process right to a timely trial. But the offender did not demonstrate that he sought a trial on the petition before 2018 or that he suffered prejudice by the delay. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: S273391, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, Due Process
J. Connors finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. Defendant contends that his speedy trial rights were violated. However, his claim under the Maine Constitution cannot succeed, because he failed to "adequately assert his right." Also, his federal speedy trial right claim fails under obvious error review. Affirmed.
Court: Maine Supreme Court, Judge: Connors, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 2023ME60, Categories: Drug Offender, speedy Trial
J. Powell grants the defendant's petition for a writ prohibiting the lower court from taking any further action in a pending criminal case accusing him of rape. The state waived any argument that defendant failed to properly invoke his speedy trial rights, so the Interstate Agreement on Detainers mandates the dismissal of his case after the court failed to conduct a trial within 180 days of his request. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Supreme Court, Judge: Powell, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: SC99949, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial
J. Trapp finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because even if the traffic stop for speeding had been illegal, it would not have allowed for exclusion of the evidence regarding his speed, only any evidence seized in a subsequent search. Meanwhile, defendant's discovery request and motion to suppress each tolled the speedy trial clock; therefore, the trial court did not violate his speedy trial rights when it failed to try him within 30 days of the charge for speeding. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Trapp, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3017, Categories: Evidence, speedy Trial, Vehicle
J. Lucci finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Competency hearings and defendant's numerous discovery motions tolled his speedy trial clock. Furthermore, although the victim admitted she had consensual sex with defendant several times during the course of events that led to his kidnapping and rape charges, the jury did not lose its way when it found her testimony about his actions credible and convicted him. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lucci, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3019, Categories: Sex Offender, Kidnapping, speedy Trial
J. Bishop finds the trial court properly denied the sexual assault defendant’s motion for absolute discharge. The pendency of defendant’s motion for discovery made before the filing of the information tolled the running of the statutory speedy trial period. Relevant statute dictates the exclusion of all time between defendant’s filing of a pretrial motion and the final disposition on that motion, regardless of the promptness or reasonableness of the delay of disposition. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bishop, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: A-22-861, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, Due Process
J. Gunter finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of conspiracy to distribute meth after his trial for crimes committed in 2019 was delayed until 2021. The delays in defendant's case were primarily due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the unexpected death of his counsel, neither of which unfairly prejudiced his defense. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Rovner, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: 22-1546, Categories: Drug Offender, speedy Trial
J. Harris finds that defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated because most of the nearly three-year delay before her assault and murder trial was attributable to her and she was late to assert the right. The trial court properly held that defendant's mother could not give alibi testimony because she was not included in defendant's notice of alibi. She opened the door to previously excluded statements when counsel asked a detective detailed questions about his aggressive questioning techniques and defendant's responses. Also, she failed to preserve her sentencing challenge. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harris, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 20210242-CA, Categories: Evidence, Murder, speedy Trial