Nations v. State, 56099
| Decision Date | 20 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 56099,56099 |
| Citation | 481 So.2d 760 |
| Parties | Charles Allen NATIONS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Harry L. Kelley, Florence, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and HAWKINS and ROBERTSON, JJ.
Charles Allen Nations was charged and convicted of a sale of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in an amount of more than one kilogram, in violation of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139(a)(1) and 41-29-113(c)(11) (Supp.1984). He was sentenced to a term of eight years with four years suspended in accordance with the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139(b)(1) (Supp.1984). Nations now prosecutes this appeal to this Court assigning as error the trial judge's denial of his motion to quash the indictment for failure of the State to prosecute the case within the 270 day time limit provided in Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 99-17-1 (Supp.1984). 1
On the evening of March 3, 1983, in Satartia, Yazoo County, Mississippi, an undercover agent for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics arranged for a purchase of fifty pounds of marijuana from one Donald Lugrin and his cohorts, one of whom was Charles Allen Nations. All arrangements for the sale were completed at Lugrin's mobile home and the transfer of the drugs and the purchase money was to be effected at a dump site where the drugs had been stashed. At the moment of transfer, the undercover agent and his colleagues, who had been hiding in the camper shell of the truck used by him, surprised and arrested one Earl Harris, a member of the defendant team. Charles Allen Nations, the Defendant below and Appellant here, was thereafter arrested at Lugrin's mobile home along with the others. Suffice it to say that there is an abundance of evidence in this record which places the jury's verdict of guilty well beyond our authority to disturb. Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064, 1067-68 (Miss.1985). We do not understand Nations to argue seriously to the contrary.
Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 99-17-1 (Supp.1984) states:
Unless good cause be shown, and a continuance duly granted by the court, all offenses for which indictments are presented to the court shall be tried no later than two hundred seventy (270) days after the accused has been arraigned.
The speedy trial statute is plain and unambiguous. Payne v. State, 363 So.2d 278, 279 (Miss.1978). This statute requires that a defendant must be tried no later than 270 days after his arraignment unless good cause for delay is shown. Speagle v. State, 390 So.2d 990, 993 (Miss.1980); Durham v. State, 377 So.2d 909 (Miss.1979). The time prior to arraignment is not computed to determine compliance with the statute. Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 198 (Miss.1982); Davis v. State, 406 So.2d 795 (Miss.1981).
It is axiomatic that "a defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial". Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 527, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2190, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 115 (1972); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489, 491 (Miss.1980). In cases involving our Section 99-17-1 where the facts reflect that the accused's trial did not commence within 270 days of arraignment, the State bears the burden of establishing that there was good cause for the delay. Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489, 491 (Miss.1980); Durham v. State, 377 So.2d 909 (Miss.1979). Where the record is silent regarding the reason for delay, the clock ticks against the State, for the State bears the risk of non-persuasion on the good cause issue.
Background for our consideration of the issue tendered is the statutory provision for four terms of circuit court in Yazoo County each year: January, April, August and November. Miss.Code Sec. 9-7-23 (1972). Between the date of Nations' arraignment until the date of his trial, court terms opened
(a) on November 7, 1983, for eighteen (18) days;
(b) on January 9, 1984, for eighteen (18) days;
(c) on April 2, 1984, for eighteen (18) days; and
(d) on August 6, 1984, for eighteen (18) days.
The record reflects that more than 387 days elapsed between the time of arraignment and the time of trial. While not all of this delay is explained fully in the record, much of it is attributable to a continuance granted for good cause and to Nations' change of attorneys. The chronology reads as follows:
Waiver of Arraignment & Entry of
Not Guilty Plea August 1, 1983
Opening of August term August 1, 1983
Order continuing cause, order does
not show on whose motion. August 19, 1983
Order For Withdrawal of Counsel
entered in vacation September 23, 1983
Letter informing court of retainer
of new attorneys October 27, 1983
Opening of November term November 3, 1983
Withdrawal of defense counsel
and end of April term and
continuence of pending matters April 20, 1984
Opening of August Term August 6, 1984
Motion To Dismiss Indictment For
Failure To Prosecute Within 270
Day Limit August 6, 1984
Motion Overriled August 6, 1984
Motion Renewed and overruled August 22, 1984
Trial August 22, 1984
According to this chronology 387 days elapsed from the date of arraignment to the date of trial.
The continuance granted August 19, 1983, produced an 80 day delay, ending upon the convening of the November term on November 7, 1983. The record does not reflect who made the motion. It does, however, contain a written order of the circuit judge reciting "that said motion is well taken and should be granted". Such language is the equivalent of a judicial determination that good cause existed for the continuance. Section 99-17-1 excepts from the limitations period delays resulting from "good cause". While it would be better practice for the trial judge to recite in his order what the cause was, this is not necessary in order that the continuance toll the running of the 270 day time limitation.
Parenthetically, we note that Nations was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. State, 95-DP-00915-SCT.
...of establishing that there was good cause for the delay. Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1375 (Miss.1988) (citing Nations v. State, 481 So.2d at 760, (Miss.1985); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489, 491 (Miss.1980); Durham v. State, 377 So.2d 909 (Miss.1979)). Where the record is silent regar......
-
Spencer v. State
...recognizes that a defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial. Beavers v. State, 498 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss.1986); Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 761 (Miss.1985); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489, 491 (Miss.1980). Further, the right to a speedy trial is not waived by silence. Barker v. Wi......
-
Polk v. State, 90-KA-0308
...the State bears the risk of non-persuasion on the good cause issue." Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1375 (Miss.1988); Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 761 (Miss.1985). "Good cause" had been held to include congested trial court dockets, under certain circumstances. Williamson v. State, 5......
-
Beckwith v. State, 91-IA-1207
...v. State, 425 So.2d 1022 (Miss.1983); Gray v. State, 481 So.2d 763 (Miss.1985); In re W.R.A, 481 So.2d 280 (Miss.1985); Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760 (Miss.1985); Darby v. State, 476 So.2d 1192 (Miss.1985); Burgess v. State, 473 So.2d 432 (Miss.1985); Plummer v. State, 472 So.2d 358 (Miss......