 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis4/1/2005
endant in 1992 by the court clerk and her counsel were returned, and both of these letters informed the defendant that a capias had been issued for her arrest. Accordingly, this factor, also, weighs against the defendant.
D. Prejudice
The defendant argues that although she "did what she was required to do in 1992," she is being prejudiced by the delay. We disagree. The legal consequences of which she now complains are the direct result of her failure to obey the court's order at the June 4 hearing that she complete payment or return to court. She did neither. We conclude that the defendant's own inactions caused the prejudice she now claims, and the record supports the trial court's determination that the defendant was not denied her right to a speedy trial.
CONCLUSION
Following our review of the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we conclude the capias in this case was not void, the trial court retained jurisdiction over this matter in 2003 for entry of the judgment, and the defendant was not denied her right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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.
|
|