State v. Buckner, S12A1981.

• Decision Date: 04 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. S12A1981.,S12A1981.
• Parties: The STATE v. BUCKNER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

292 Ga. 390

738 S.E.2d 65

The STATE

v.BUCKNER.

No. S12A1981.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 4, 2013.

Larry Chisolm, Dist. Atty., Diane Morrell McLeod, Savannah, David E. Perry, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Office Of the District Attorney, Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department Of Law, for appellant.

Amy Lee Ihrig, Office of the Public Defender, Savannah, Jason Randall Clark, Jason Clark, P.C., Brunswick, Newell McAfee Hamilton, Jr., Georgia Capital Defender, Brunswick, for appellee.

BLACKWELL, Justice.

In December 2007, Bobby Lavon Buckner was indicted in Chatham County for the kidnapping, molestation, and murder of 12–year–old Ashleigh Moore. Four years later, Buckner still had not been brought to trial, so he filed a motion to dismiss his indictment, arguing that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that Buckner had been denied his right to a speedy trial, and it reluctantly dismissed the indictment, acknowledging that the remedy of dismissal is a harsh one, but that it is the only available remedy for such a denial.¹ The State appeals from the dismissal of the indictment, contending that the trial court misapplied the principles set out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), and Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992), which guide a court in its consideration of whether a delay in bringing an accused to trial amounts to a denial of his right to a speedy trial.²

In Georgia, the application of these principles to the circumstances of a particular case is a task committed principally to the discretion of the trial courts, and it is settled law that our role as a court of review is a limited one.³ See State v. Porter, 288 Ga. 524, 526(2)(a), 705 S.E.2d 636 (2011). Under our precedents, we must accept the factual findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous, id., and we must accept the ultimate conclusion of the trial court unless it amounts to an abuse of discretion, even though we might have reached a different conclusion were the issue committed to our discretion. Id. at 533(2)(e), 705 S.E.2d 636. In this case, the trial court entered a 36–page order, in which it carefully and thoroughly explained its reasons for concluding that Buckner had been denied his right to a speedy trial.⁴ Upon our review, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in its assessment of the relevant facts, and we cannot say that its ultimate conclusion, which appears reasoned and reasonable, amounts to an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we must affirm the judgment below.

1. On April 18, 2003, Ashleigh Moore disappeared from her home in Savannah, never again to be seen alive. Buckner, a convicted sex offender, was arrested the next day, after law enforcement officers learned that he had been alone with Ashleigh and two other children, which amounted to a violation of the terms of his probation. Buckner later admitted a violation of his probation, and he also pled guilty to several sex crimes involving children other than Ashleigh, crimes for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twenty years.⁵ Buckner was not charged for several years, however, with any crimes against Ashleigh.

In December 2007, a Chatham County grand jury indicted Buckner for the murder, kidnapping, and molestation of Ashleigh.⁶ After several continuances, the case was set for the tenth time for trial on April 4, 2011, but on that date, the prosecuting attorneys announced for the first time that the State intended to seek the death penalty. In light of that announcement, the trial was continued yet again, the case was reassigned to another trial judge, and new lawyers appeared to represent Buckner, filing more than 140 motions in the months that followed. Then, on August 25, 2011, the prosecuting attorneys announced that the State would not seek the death penalty after all, and the trial was reset for February 2012. In December 2011, Buckner filed his motion to dismiss, and the trial court granted that motion in an order dated May 30, 2012, nearly four-and-a-half years after Buckner was indicted.

2. As we noted earlier, the principles that guide a court when it considers whether the delay in bringing an accused to trial amounts to a denial of his right to a speedy trial are set out in Barker and Doggett. Some delay is inevitable, of course, so a court first must consider whether the delay is long enough to raise a presumption of prejudice and to warrant a more searching judicial inquiry into the delay. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651–652(II), 112 S.Ct. 2686; see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 530–531(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182;State v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 863, 864(1), 734 S.E.2d 12 (2012); State v. Pickett, 288 Ga. 674, 675(2)(a), 706 S.E.2d 561 (2011). The right to a speedy trial attaches at the time of arrest or formal accusation or indictment, whichever occurs first, and the courts measure the delay from the time the right attaches. Scandrett v. State, 279 Ga. 632, 633(1)(a), 619 S.E.2d 603 (2005). A delay approaching one year is sufficient in most cases to raise a presumption of prejudice and to warrant a more searching inquiry. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652(II), n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2686; but see Barker, 407 U.S. at 530–531(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182 (“[T]he length of delay that will provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case.”). In this case, more than 53 months elapsed between the original indictment and the entry of the order granting the motion to dismiss. As the State acknowledges, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that this delay raises a presumption of prejudice. See Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55(2)(a), 663 S.E.2d 189 (2008).

3. When a delay raises a presumption of prejudice, and a more searching inquiry is warranted, a court must consider “whether [the] delay before trial was uncommonly long, whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for that delay, whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether he suffered prejudice as the delay's result.” Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651(II), 112 S.Ct. 2686; see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 530–533(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182;Johnson, 291 Ga. at 864(2), 734 S.E.2d 12;Pickett, 288 Ga. at 675(2)(a), 706 S.E.2d 561. Of these factors, no one is dispositive. Instead, a court must weigh all four factors, along with any other relevant circumstances, in “a difficult and sensitive balancing process.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 533(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182; see also Pickett, 288 Ga. at 675(2)(a), 706 S.E.2d 561. Weighing these factors, as we noted earlier, is committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court, and “its ultimate judgment is reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Porter, 288 Ga. at 533, 705 S.E.2d 636. We now examine whether the trial court in this case abused its discretion in weighing the pertinent factors and concluding that Buckner was denied his right to a speedy trial.

(a) The First Factor: Length of the Delay. In its order of dismissal, the trial court correctly acknowledged that the delay that can be tolerated in a particular case depends to some extent on the complexity and seriousness of the charges in that case. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530–531(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182;Rogers v. State, 286 Ga. 387, 388, 688 S.E.2d 344 (2010). Although the crimes with which Buckner was charged were as serious as they come, the trial court found that the State essentially had completed its investigation of the case by the time Buckner was indicted, and it found that the case was no more complicated than most other cases involving such serious crimes. In light of these findings, none of which appear clearly erroneous, the trial court concluded that the 53–month delay in this case was “uncommonly long,” and it weighed this factor against the State. The trial court properly considered the “peculiar circumstances” of this case, and we cannot say that its conclusion that the case was not prosecuted with the promptness customary in such cases was unreasonable. See Jackson v. State, 279 Ga. 449, 452(3), 614 S.E.2d 781 (2005) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it weighed the first factor against the State. See Pickett, 288 Ga. at 676(2)(c)(1), 706 S.E.2d 561;Ruffin, 284 Ga. at 58–59(2)(b)(i), 663 S.E.2d 189.

(b) The Second Factor: Reasons for the Delay. We next consider the findings of the trial court about the reasons for the delay. While “[a] deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government,” an unintentional delay, such as that caused by the mere negligence of the prosecuting attorneys or the overcrowded docket of the trial court, “should be weighted less heavily.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531(IV), 92 S.Ct. 2182; see also Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 90(II), 129 S.Ct. 1283, 173 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009). In this case, the trial court found that much of the delay was attributable to the negligent inaction of the prosecuting attorneys or to the reassignment of the case from one prosecuting attorney to another. The trial court also found that some delay was attributable to unknown circumstances about which the record is silent. The trial court correctly weighed these portions of the delay—which amounted, the trial court found, to approximately 30 months—benignly against the State. See Pickett, 288 Ga. at 676(2)(c)(2), 706 S.E.2d 561 (trial court “correctly weighed [unintentional delay] against the State only benignly”); Brannen v. State, 274 Ga. 454, 455, 553 S.E.2d 813 (2001) ( “Where no reason appears for a delay, we must treat the delay as caused by the negligence of the State in bringing the case to trial.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). The trial...