 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Marquez6/26/2001
ngth of the delay that is charged to the State in this simple case, we conclude that these factors do weigh considerably in Defendant's favor.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the length of delay was inordinately long for a simple DUI case. On balance, we weighed the reasons for delay significantly against the State, noting that out of the eighteen-month period between Defendant's initial arrest and his plea, only five months were weighed neutrally between the parties. We further noted that none of the delay weighed against Defendant. A significant and substantial portion of the delay was the result of an overburdened court docket and clerical errors made by court personnel. Although the kind of bureaucratic delay which occurred in this case may be understandable on a personal level, on a systematic level, it is intolerable. The State has an absolute constitutional responsibility to bring defendants to trial in a timely manner. If the State requires additional personnel or other resources, the State has the responsibility to request and secure those resources. It does not have the choice of holding defendants hostage to delays caused by systematic break-downs in the judicial process. As loathe as we are to release persons properly charged with serious crimes, the Constitution is a higher calling that both the State and this Court must heed.
On balance, we conclude that Defendant's speedy trial rights were violated and thus reverse his conviction. We remand this matter to the district court for entry of an order of dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Chief Judge
LYNN PICKARD, Judge
|