116 results for 'cat:"Speedy Trial"'.
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of assault and strangulation. The court did not deny defendant his right to a speedy trial since the time periods in question were excluded as a reasonable time in which the state could respond to defendant's filings. The evidence also supported the finding that defendant was the initial aggressor and that prior uncharged acts of domestic abuse were relevant to prove motive and intent. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 02379, Categories: Assault, Domestic Violence, speedy Trial
J. Heytens finds the lower court denied to dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act. The defendant has a long history of mental illness and substance abuse. After an episode that started with him knocking on a stranger’s door to ask for a drink of water and ended with him pulling a gun, he was convicted of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The defendant's trial was significantly delayed after he was declared incompetent, an allowed exception to the Act. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Heytens , Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 23-4089, Categories: Competence, Firearms, 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
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. Dillard finds that the trial court properly entered an order of nolle prosequi on defendant's charge for influencing a witness. Defendant was separately convicted of murder, aggravated assault and concealing the death of another. The trial court did not commit any error by entering the order without first holding a hearing on defendant's plea in bar to dismiss the case based on a violation of his speedy trial rights. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Dillard, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: A24A0397, Categories: 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
J. Bower finds that defendant was properly denied relief from her conviction for unauthorized possession of an offensive weapon. She contends counsel should have sought dismissal based on speedy indictment violations, but defendant's failure to make an initial appearance resulted in another arrest and a second scheduled initial appearance, and thus the speedy indictment clock began to run at the time of her second arrest. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bower, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 22-1997, Categories: Weapons, 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. Cabret finds the superior court committed no error in denying defendant's habeas corpus petition he filed after he was convicted of rape, murder and other charges and sentenced to life in prison. There is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, in part because although the superior court incorrectly found that six of the 11 delays that caused a 27-month gap between defendant's arrest and trial were the fault of defendant, the delays caused by the prosecution were largely out of its control or due to negligence that does not support defendant's claims. Affirmed.
Court: Virgin Islands Supreme Court, Judge: Cabret, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 2024 VI 16, Categories: Habeas, Murder, speedy Trial
J. Marcus finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation, findings his right to a speedy trial was not violated. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Marcus , Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 22-10604, Categories: speedy Trial
J. Riedmann finds the district court properly convicted defendant for simultaneous firearm and drug possession. Drug task force officers discovered the items in defendant's apartment during a warranted search. Defendant sought to challenge the conviction on speedy trial grounds, though she has acknowledged the continuance time period was properly excluded. Her claims of ineffective assistance based on her counsel's having caused that error are without merit. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Riedmann , Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: A-23-475, Categories: Drug Offender, Firearms, speedy Trial
J. Welch finds the district court improperly reversed the county court's dismissal of a DUI case. Although defendant requested a continuance to retain counsel, the county court did not advise defendant of the effect of a continuance, and it found that the time from that date to the continued arraignment date was not excludable. The district court reversed this after the state filed a notice of intent to take exception but failed to pay the docket fee. Because the state acknowledged failing to pay the docket fee, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Reversed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welch , Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: A-23-001, Categories: Dui, speedy Trial, Jurisdiction
J. Stephens finds that the lower court improperly reversed defendant's murder conviction. The lower court found that because the state wrongfully delayed bringing charges against defendant, the resulting loss of key witness testimony violated defendant's due process rights. While the state was negligent in its delay, there is no proof that that defendant suffered any prejudice from the loss of witness testimony. Reversed.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Stephens, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 101502-0, Categories: Murder, speedy Trial, Due Process
J. Wilson finds that the appellate term properly dismissed an indictment against defendant on speedy-trial grounds. Although the trial court, reacting to multiple requests for ongoing postponement by the prosecution, did not schedule the specific successive dates offered, the time delay still needed to be charged to the prosecution because no reasons were given for any of the requested post-readiness adjournments. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 28, Categories: speedy Trial
J. Gruber finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for battery and possession of a weapon by an incarcerated person. The homemade weapon used to stab a corrections officer was found in defendant's prison cell. Though defendant seeks discharge on speedy trial grounds, the trial clock had not lapsed, as some of the excluded days were due to Covid-19 delays. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gruber , Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: CR-23-430, Categories: Weapons, Battery, speedy Trial
J. Funke finds the appeals court improperly affirmed the trial court's overruling of defendant's motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds. Charged with felony assault and firearm use for shooting his father, defendant's trial was continued due to scheduling issues. The trial transcript shows the continuance was mentioned and for what reasons, though no written order was entered. Mere statements of unavailability are insufficient to show docket congestion or good cause existed to continue the jury trial past the 6-month deadline. Reversed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Funke , Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: S-22-097, Categories: Firearms, Assault, speedy Trial
J. Gratton finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence as untimely. Neither a change in law regarding drug dog alerts nor a change in counsel constituted excusable neglect that would allow a late motion. Her speedy trial claim failed because most of the delay was caused by the emergency suspension of jury trials due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gratton, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 50179, Categories: Drug Offender, Search, speedy Trial
J. Owens finds that the district court properly entered convictions for wire fraud, mail fraud and various tax offenses. Defendant claimed that the 21 days it took the U.S. Marshals Service to transport him from the District of New Jersey to the Central District of California should have triggered a Speedy Trial Act violation. Defendant claimed that the government did not bring him to trial within the 70-day limit under United States Code. The seventy-day clock is triggered by the public filing of the indictment or the first appearance before a judge. The 21-day delay between defendant's detention in New Jersey and his first appearance before a judge was immaterial to the Speedy Trial Act analysis. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Owens, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 22-50047, Categories: Fraud, Tax, speedy Trial
J. Pinson finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of rape and murder. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's convictions, including evidence that one victim was found beaten by the side of a road with defendant's sperm in her vagina and that defendant's conduct accelerated her death from cocaine intoxication. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the rape charge with respect to the second victim on speedy trial grounds. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the delay of more than a decade between his indictment and trial for the second victim's rape. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Pinson, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: S23A0927, Categories: Murder, Sex Offender, speedy Trial
J. Boggs finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder, burglary, kidnapping, child cruelty and firearm offenses. The trial court correctly rejected defendant's speedy trial claim because defendant was more to blame for the delay than the state and was not prejudiced by the delay. There was a period of one year and seven months between the order granting defendant a new trial and the start of his fourth trial. Defendant claimed the delay should be measured from his initial arrest to the start of the fourth trial--a time period of about 27 years--in light of the Brady violations by the state in his previous trials. Defendant entered a consent order and thereby waived his argument that periods before the order should be included in the length of the delay. The trial court correctly excluded evidence of alleged police and prosecutorial bias against defendant. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Boggs, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: S23A1091, Categories: Murder, speedy Trial
J. Kuhn finds the trial court did not violate defendant's speedy trial rights when it continued his trial date past the statutory deadline. A government witness's unavailability due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and general concerns about the spread of Covid gave the court a legitimate reason to delay the trial. However, the trial court erroneously failed to merge two convictions for sentencing purposes, as every element of reckless manslaughter is also an element of reckless vehicular homicide and, therefore, is necessarily a lesser-included offense. Affirmed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Kuhn, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2024COA20, Categories: speedy Trial, Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide
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. Cassel finds the trial court properly overruled defendant's motion for absolute discharge of his felony offense on speedy trial grounds. Though defendant contends his waiver of speedy trial rights applies only to a continuance granted solely at the request of the defendant and not the state, this argument has no merit. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Cassel , Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: S-23-356, Categories: speedy Trial, Due Process
J. Wall finds a lower court properly invoked a crowded docket exception on behalf of a defendant. The defendant, who was charged with arranging a sexual encounter of a 17- year-old female, argued that he was entitled to a speedy trial. However, the State presented sufficient evidence in court that the motion was not unreasonable. Affirmed.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Wall, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 123687, Categories: Evidence, Sex Offender, speedy Trial
Per curiam, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirms a judgment denying relief to a woman charged with violating a harassment prevention order. The rulings she’s challenging can be addressed through an appeal if she is convicted, but the denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case isn’t appealable until after the trial has concluded. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: SJC-13508, Categories: speedy Trial, Harassment
J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of interstate interference with an adoptive grandfather's lawful custody of his 16-year-old grandchild. Although the trial court wrongly found that the 26-month delay between defendant's arrest and trial due to the Covid-19 pandemic was not presumptively prejudicial, defendant failed to show that the denial of his motion for discharge and acquittal based on an alleged speedy trial violation was an abuse of discretion. The trial court correctly admitted evidence of defendant's sex acts with the grandchild. However, the trial court incorrectly ordered defendant to register as a sex offender as a condition of his sentence. Although the grandchild was under the age of 18, the victim of defendant's interference offense was the grandfather. Affirmed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: A23A1319, Categories: Sentencing, speedy Trial