State v. Barnes

The relevant analysis for alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial involves two steps: (1) determine the total period of delay and calculate the delay that is attributable to the state or the delay the defendant did not request or to which he did not consent; then (2) if the delay is longer than ordinarily would be expected, determine whether the delay is reasonable by examining all the attendant circumstances.

Defendant appealed his convictions for DUII, reckless driving, and misuse of a special left turn lane. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. On December 30, 2011, Defendant was arrested. A trial date was set for December 13, 2012. A new trial date was set for May 30, 2013 and later changed to June 13, 2013. The State then requested a continuance because the trial date interfered with the DDA’s vacation schedule. The new trial date was set for September 4, 2013. To determine whether the delay violated Defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the court applied a two-step analysis: (1) determine the total period of delay and calculate the delay that is attributable to the state or the delay the defendant did not request or to which he did not consent; then (2) if the delay is longer than ordinarily would be expected, determine whether the delay is reasonable by examining all the attendant circumstances. The total period of delay is determined from the date a defendant is charged to the last date set for trial. The 30-day delay due to the State failing to produce discovery and the 96-day delay due to the prosecutor’s vacation time was unreasonable. Of the 19 month delay, 18 months were attributable to the State and was unreasonable. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal.