State v. Deans
Decision Date | 13 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-35000,A-1-CA-35000 |
Citation | 435 P.3d 1280 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laverle J. DEANS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
{1} Defendant Laverle Deans appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds after conditionally pleading guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-3(A) (2007, amended 2016). The alleged violation of Defendant's right to a speedy trial arises in a unique context. During the pendency of Defendant's case, the New Mexico Supreme Court determined that multiple counts of possession of child pornography (like those in Defendant's indictment) could only be charged as one count. See State v. Olsson , 2014-NMSC-012, 324 P.3d 1230. Consequently, the district court merged the twenty counts of possession of child pornography Defendant faced into one count, dramatically reducing Defendant's exposure from thirty years of incarceration to eighteen months of incarceration. Because we determine that Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, we affirm the district court.
{2} For simplicity, we outline the pertinent timeline here based on the testimony presented at the hearing on Defendant's speedy trial motion, as well as the record and available hearing transcripts. The only testimony offered at the speedy trial hearing was that of Anne Keener, former assistant district attorney who was the prosecutor on the case for most relevant time periods. More details will be included in our discussion as needed.
{3} March 7, 2012: Defendant arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.
{4} After the denial of his speedy trial motion, Defendant's case was set to go to trial on October 14, 2014. Prior to trial, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, contrary to Section 30-6A-3(A), and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. Defendant was later sentenced to eighteen months incarceration, the maximum term of imprisonment at the time, and received credit for time served. This appeal followed.
{5} "The right of the accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution."1 Spearman , 2012-NMSC-023, ¶ 16, 283 P.3d 272. In determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial, we analyze the four factors set out by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) : "(1) the length of delay in bringing the case to trial, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay." State v. Serros , 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 5, 366 P.3d 1121. "We weigh these factors according to the unique circumstances of each case in light of the [s]tate and the defendant's conduct and the harm to the defendant from the delay." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "On appeal, we give deference to the district court's factual findings, but we review the weighing and the balancing of the Barker factors de novo." State v. Collier , 2013-NMSC-015, ¶ 39, 301 P.3d 370 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
{6} "The first factor, length of delay, is both the threshold question in the speedy trial analysis and a factor to be weighed with the other three Barker factors." State v. Ochoa , 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 12, 406 P.3d 505. In State v. Garza , 2009-NMSC-038, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387, our Supreme Court adopted guidelines establishing the reasonable timeframe in which criminal cases should be brought to trial based on their respective complexity—twelve months for a simple case, fifteen months for an intermediate case, and eighteen months for a complex case. Id. ¶ 2. If the total time of delay exceeds the applicable guideline, the full analysis of the Barker factors is triggered, and this factor weighs in favor of the defendant. See Garza , 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 ; Serros , 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 26, 366 P.3d 1121. The weight we assign this factor is proportional to the length of the delay—"[a]s the delay lengthens, it weighs increasingly in favor of the accused." Ochoa , 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 14, 406 P.3d 505.
{7} Because the district court below did not make a determination on the issue of complexity, we are free to make this determination. See State v. O'Neal , 2009-NMCA-020, ¶ 16, 145 N.M. 604, 203 P.3d 135 ; see also State v. Coffin , 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 57, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 ( ). Factors bearing on the complexity of the case include the number and complexity of the charges, the number of witnesses, and whether expert testimony is necessary. See, e.g. , State v. Montoya , 2011-NMCA-074, ¶ 16, 150 N.M. 415, 259 P.3d 820 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Serna
...¶ 18 ("[D]elay initiated by defense counsel generally weighs against the defendant."); State v. Deans, 2019-NMCA-015, ¶ 18, 435 P.3d 1280 (stating generally the defendant is held accountable for delays such as "stipulated continuances and removing defense counsel").{42} The final period of ......
-
State v. Miranda-Aguirre
...that the defendant was prejudiced where he was incarcerated for nearly twenty-eight months prior to trial. 2019-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 8, 24-26, 435 P.3d 1280. In Ochoa and Deans, the defendants did not present evidence of particularized prejudice. Like Ochoa and Deans we believe that Defendant's inc......
-
State v. Gunthorpe
...against the State. Generally delays caused by defense counsel are attributable to the defendant. State v. Deans, 2019-NMCA-015, ¶ 18, 435 P.3d 1280, cert. denied, 2019-NMCERT-___ (No. S-1-SC-37473 Feb. 14, 2019). But for defense counsel's failure to attend the docket call, Defendant would h......
-
State v. Kleinegger
...factual findings, but we review the weighing and the balancing of the Barker factors de novo." State v. Deans, 2019-NMCA-015, ¶ 5, 435 P.3d 1280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).A. Length of Delay{4} "The first factor, length of delay, is both the threshold question in the sp......