 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis4/1/2005
een the defendant's being sentenced at her last court appearance on June 4, 1992, and her October 2002 arrest on a capias, resulting in entry of a judgment.
According to the transcript of the defendant's plea of guilty, the trial court, just before sentencing on June 4, 1992, asked, " ill [the defendant] need some time?" Defense counsel explained that the defendant was being transferred by her employer to Texas and wanted to serve the remainder of her sentence in the Hamblen County Jail. Her attorney then asked, " f we have completed the payment of fine and costs and restitution by [September 24], would it be necessary for her to come in?" and the court responded, "No. I'll just enter judgment and close the file." On September 24, counsel appeared and reminded the trial court that the defendant was "in Texas with her job, and [the court] had indicated that she wouldn't need to fly in for this if she was doing okay." He said the defendant had paid $258 of the $625.50 court costs; that restitution had been made " s far as kn w," the defendant having insurance to cover damages; and that he would send a letter to the Hamblen County sheriff seeking verification that she had completed the period she was to be incarcerated. Defense counsel then agreed to an additional resetting to October 23, 1992, to demonstrate that these matters had been taken care of. However, at that setting, after the defendant's counsel advised the court that he "wrote her a letter and told her [payment of the balance of the fine and costs] absolutely had to be done by today, and I have not heard from her," the trial court directed that a forfeiture be taken.
Following a hearing on the defendant's claim that she had been denied her right to a speedy trial, the court determined that the delay was attributable to the defendant herself:
It is clear that [when] the defendant entered a plea was told her obligations and her appearance was waived upon the first hearing of September 24, 1992[.] he was ordered to pay her fines and costs and restitution and judgment [were] reserved. The Court ordered, at that time, that there would be verification of the restitution and payment of the costs and the jail time. Because of noncompliance a forfeiture issued. It is clear that [the defendant] will suffer some consequences at this time should judgment enter, but it is further clear to the Court that [the defendant] did not suffer a violation of her speedy trial rights nor of any failure by the state to cause judgment to enter in her absence. [The defendant], according to the transcript of the evidence, was under obligation to do certain things which to this date there is no verification of her having complied with, and had those matters been dealt with she would not be suffering the inconveniences as well as the possible prejudice at this time. While it is apparent from the argument heard by the Court that [the defendant] probably knew little or nothing about the delay or the problem, and might have rectified it if she had known, the reasons for the delay were not those of the state, but of [the defendant's] failure to follow through her obligation. The Court finds that judgment should enter at this time and that [the defendant] should be required to comply with her obligations.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the delay was not attributable to her and that it violated her rights to a speedy trial.
In State v. Bishop, 493 S.W.2d 81 (Tenn. 1973), our supreme court adopted the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (1972), to determine whether speedy trial rights had been denied:
In Barker v. Wingo, supra, the court accepted a "balancing test" in which the con
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|