State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 12 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 03-15-00620-CR,03-15-00620-CR |
| Parties | The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Dennis DAVIS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ms. Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez, Attorney at Law, 1103 Nueces, Austin, TX 78701, for Appellee.
Ms. Kathryn A. Scales, Assistant District Attorney, Travis County, Texas, Mr. M. Scott Taliaferro, Assistant District Attorney, Director, Appellate Division, P. O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767, for Appellant.
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland
Jeff Rose, Chief JusticeThe State of Texas filed this appeal contending that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside the indictment against Dennis Davis for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The State contends that the court’s order dismissing the indictment was not justified by a properly conducted analysis under Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). We will reverse the district court’s order.
Our speedy-trial analysis occurs in the context of a long procedural history encompassing Davis’s indictment, jury trial resulting in a judgment of his guilt, reversal by the court of appeals, review by the Court of Criminal Appeals, remand to the district court, and his indictment being set aside. The facts of the underlying case are set forth in this Court’s 2013 opinion:
Davis v. State , 413 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd). The jury convicted Davis in 2011 for Antonetti’s murder, and the court sentenced him to thirty-six years' imprisonment. Id. at 819. The jury was not presented with evidence of a potential third-party perpetrator, including evidence of Antonetti’s neighbor’s identification of a different man from a photographic lineup as the person that he had seen holding a club or small bat while looking into the neighbor’s apartment on the morning of Antonetti’s assault. See id. at 827. This Court determined that Davis received ineffective assistance of counsel, reversed his conviction, and remanded this cause for a new trial. Id. at 838. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused the State’s petition for discretionary review. See In re Davis , No. PD-1520-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 183, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2014). This Court issued our mandate in Davis’s appeal on March 6, 2014.
On March 28, 2014, after remand, the district court appointed new counsel for Davis. Defense counsel filed a "Motion for Expedited DNA Analysis" on July 15, 2014, and the district court signed an order granting that motion the next day. Davis filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Want of a Speedy Trial" on October 1, 2014, which the district court denied at a hearing on October 13, 2014. Davis then filed a "Motion to Set Aside Indictment for Failure to Afford Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial" on November 19, 2014. The district court considered the motion to set aside the indictment at a hearing held November 25, 2014, and kept the motion under advisement.
At a status-review hearing on December 1, 2014, the State advised the district court of its intent to file a motion for continuance of the trial scheduled for December 8, 2014, seeking the completion of DNA testing. The district court stated that it was inclined to grant the State’s continuance because the parties were "all better served by having the DNA results." Davis agreed "that [wa]s the best course of action," and defense counsel added that Davis was not waiving his speedy-trial right. But Davis reemphasized the importance of the DNA testing and his willingness to wait for the completion of such testing. The district court then stated its intent to reschedule the trial for May 4, 2015.
When the State filed its motion for continuance on December 4, 2014, it also filed a motion to dismiss the criminal action against Davis "pending further investigation." That same day, the district court held a docket call and pretrial hearing, after which it denied the State’s motion to dismiss the criminal action against Davis, signed an order granting the State’s motion for continuance and resetting the trial for May 4, 2015, and kept under advisement Davis’s motion to set aside the indictment.
Between January and May of 2015, the district court signed several orders concerning the items to be subjected to DNA testing, comparison samples or profiles of certain suspects to be used in the testing, and payment arrangements for the testing. Cellmark Forensics provided the final results of its DNA testing on May 12, 2015. On July 14, 2015, Davis filed an amended "Motion to Set Aside Indictment for Failure to Afford Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial," and the State filed a response on August 4, 2015. The district court did not hold a hearing on Davis’s motion. On September 9, 2015, the district court signed an "Order Setting Aside Indictment for Failure to Afford Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial," issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its ruling. The State then filed this appeal from the order setting aside Davis’s indictment.
The State contends that the district court abused its discretion by granting Davis’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his right to a speedy trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. The State raises four issues in this appeal that it has briefed together, collectively contending that the court erred in its application of the factors considered in determining the speedy-trial issue under the United States Supreme Court’s Barker case. Consideration of the speedy-trial issue in this appeal requires close review of the events in this case. See Emery v. State , 881 S.W.2d 702, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (). The following is a chronology of significant events in this case:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Echols
...in setting forth the beginning and end dates for calculating the length of delay, we agree with our sister court's holding in State v. Davis that, "[i]n the interest of justice, we [should] consider[] the length of the delay using the greatest possible time span, running from [the defendant......
-
Carter v. State
...not designated for publication) (citing Porter v. State, 540 S.W.3d 178, 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. ref'd); State v. Davis, 549 S.W.3d 688, 708 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.); U.S. v. Casas, 425 F.3d 23, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2005); Gray v. King, 724 F.2d 1199, 1204 (5th Cir.......
-
State v. Moreno
...appeal is delay attributable to Moreno. We disagree.The authority the State cites in support of this contention— State v. Davis , 549 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.) —is distinguishable. In Davis , the defendant appealed his conviction for a single count of murder. Id. at 694–95......
-
Foster v. State
...valid reason for the delay. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531-32; Brown v. Bobby, 656 F.3d 325, 333-34 (6th Cir. 2011); State v. Davis, 549 S.W.3d 688, 702-03 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.); Celestine v. State, 356 S.W.3d 502, 507-08 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). In the underl......