 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adkins v. State3/24/2003
After appellant dropped the stick, the officers arrested him, without obtaining a warrant, for unlawfully carrying a weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.02(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002). During the search incident to arrest, Officer Morales searched the passenger compartment of the truck. Officer Morales folded down the seat and found a brown prescription bottle behind the seat on the driver's side. The bottle contained twenty-five individually wrapped rocks of cocaine.
DISCUSSION
Speedy Trial
In his fifth issue, appellant complains that his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment was violated. Because a claim of a speedy trial violation potentially entitles appellant to a dismissal instead of a new trial, we will discuss it before his other issues. See Brecheisen v. State, 4 S.W.3d 761, 764-65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (" he only possible remedy for a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is dismissal.").
The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-23, 87 S. Ct. 988, 993 (1967). Additionally, our own state constitution and code of criminal procedure guarantee a defendant's right to a speedy trial. Tex. Const. Art. I § 10; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon Supp. 2002). The right to a speedy trial under the Texas Constitution has been interpreted to be congruent with the right guaranteed by the federal constitution; thus, we use the same balancing test used by federal courts to determine if a violation of the right has occurred. Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 942 (1992).
In Barker v. Wingo, the United States Supreme Court set forth the balancing test that federal courts use in evaluating speedy trial claims. 407 U.S. 514, 530-32, 92 S. Ct. 2192-93 (1972). Under this test, courts must weigh and then balance four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant. Id.; State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). No one factor is deciding in determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right to speedy trial, and courts must consider all of the factors together along with any other relevant circumstances. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193. The appropriate standard of review of a trial court's decision on a speedy trial claim is a bifurcated standard of review. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 821. The reviewing court applies an abuse of discretion standard for the factual components and a de novo standard for the legal components of the trial court's decision. Id.
Length of Delay
To trigger a speedy trial analysis, the defendant must demonstrate that the delay is of sufficient length to be considered presumptively prejudicial under the circumstances of the case. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192; Schenekl v. State, 996 S.W.2d 305, 312 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1999), aff'd, 30 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The length of the delay is measured from the time of arrest until the time of trial. Schenekl, 996 S.W.2d at 312 (citing Emery v. State, 881 S.W.2d 702, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1192 (1995)). Although there is not a specific length of time that triggers a speedy trial analysis, some courts presume that a delay longer than eight months is prejudicial. Harris, 827 S.W.2d at 956; Schenekl, 996 S.W.2d at 312. In this case, appellant was arrested on October 29, 1998. The
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|