State v. Munoz, 006598
Citation | 991 S.W.2d 818 |
Decision Date | 17 February 1999 |
Docket Number | 006598 |
Parties | IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 0065-98 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. ALFRED DeLEON MUNOZ, Appellee ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HIDALGO COUNTY McCORMICK, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Mansfield, Keller, Holland, Womack and Keasler, JJ., joined. Meyers, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur in the result. O P I N I O N This case requires the Court to decide issues of federal constitutional law. Therefore, we are obligated to follow controlling United States Supreme Court federal constitutional precedents. Appellee was indicted on one count of deadly conduct and three counts of attempted murder. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss the indictment based on federal constitutional speedy trial grounds and the State appealed. Relying on its prior decision in Melendez v. State, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. State v. Munoz, 960 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1997); Melendez v. State, 929 S.W.2d 595 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.). We granted discretionary review petitions filed by the Hidalgo County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW The essential ingredient of the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial guarantee is "orderly expedition and not mere speed." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 459-60, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971) (Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee "would appear to guarantee a criminal defendant that the Government will move with the dispatch that is appropriate to assure him an early and proper disposition of the charges against him"). Since 1972 United States Supreme Court precedent has required courts to analyze federal constitutional speedy trial claims "on an ad hoc basis" by weighing and then balancing four factors: (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) assertion of the right, and ( |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
ALFRED DeLEON MUNOZ, Appellee
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
McCORMICK, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Mansfield, Keller, Holland, Womack and Keasler, JJ., joined. Meyers, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur in the result.
This case requires the Court to decide issues of federal constitutional law. Therefore, we are obligated to follow controlling United States Supreme Court federal constitutional precedents.
Appellee was indicted on one count of deadly conduct and three counts of attempted murder. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss the indictment based on federal constitutional speedy trial grounds and the State appealed. Relying on its prior decision in Melendez v. State, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. State v. Munoz, 960 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1997); Melendez v. State, 929 S.W.2d 595 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.). We granted discretionary review petitions filed by the Hidalgo County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The essential ingredient of the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial guarantee is "orderly expedition and not mere speed." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 459-60, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971) ( ). Since 1972 United States Supreme Court precedent has required courts to analyze federal constitutional speedy trial claims "on an ad hoc basis" by weighing and then balancing four factors: (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the accused. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 116-17 (1972). This balancing test requires weighing case-by-case "the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant." Barker, 33 L.Ed.2d at 116. No single Barker factor is a "necessary or sufficient condition to the finding" of a speedy trial violation. Barker, 33 L.Ed.2d at 118. The "related" Barker factors "must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant." Id.
In reviewing the trial court's decision on appellee's federal constitutional speedy trial claim, the Court of Appeals applied a "bifurcated standard of review" meaning "an abuse of discretion standard for the factual components" and a "de novo" standard for the legal components of the trial court's decision. Munoz, 960 S.W.2d at 196. Based on this Court's recent decisions in Guzman v. State and Johnson v. State, we agree this is the appropriate standard of review. See Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997) ( ); Johnson v. State, 954 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997) ( ). This disposes of the District Attorney's first ground for review which requests this Court to clarify the standard of review in cases like this.
Most of the facts relevant to appellee's speedy trial claim are undisputed. The issue here mostly involves the legal significance of these facts to this claim. Because appellee won in the trial court on his speedy trial claim, we must presume the trial court resolved any disputed fact issues in appellee's favor, and we are required to defer to these implied findings of fact that the record supports. See Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89.
The length of delay is a "triggering mechanism" for analysis of the other Barker factors. Barker, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117. "Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other [Barker] factors that go into the balance." Id. "Presumptive prejudice" does not "necessarily indicate a statistical probability of prejudice; it simply marks the point at which courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the Barker enquiry." Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520, 528 fn 1 (1992). This Barker factor "is actually a double enquiry." Doggett, 120 L.Ed.2d at 528.
In this case, the State concedes and the Court of Appeals decided "a seventeen-month delay between the date of [appellee's] arrest, February 11, 1995, and the date of his speedy trial hearing, July 25, 1996, is sufficient to trigger review of the remaining [Barker] factors." Munoz, 960 S.W.2d at 197. We also will consider this delay sufficient to trigger consideration of the other Barker factors.
Under Barker "different weights should be assigned to different reasons" for the delay. Barker, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117. A "deliberate attempt to delay the trial" should be weighed heavily against the government. Id.1 A "more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighed [against the government] less heavily." Id. A valid reason for the delay should not be weighed against the government at all. Id. (valid reason for the delay "should serve to justify appropriate delay"). And delay which is attributable in whole or in part to the defendant may even constitute a waiver of a speedy trial claim. Barker, 33 L.Ed.2d at 116 ( ); see also Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26, 38 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring) ( ).
During the hearing on appellee's motion to dismiss the indictment based on speedy trial grounds, the prosecution attributed the entire seventeen-month delay to an overcrowded court docket and ongoing plea negotiations. The record reflects the prosecution made four plea offers to appellee during this period of time. Each succeeding plea offer was more beneficial to appellee than the previous plea offer.
The parties agreed on a plea after the prosecution's fourth plea offer. The case was set for a hearing on appellee's plea for June 18, 1996. However, at the June 18th hearing appellee reneged on the deal and asked the prosecution for a more beneficial plea. The prosecution refused and informed the trial court there would be no guilty plea. The trial court set a trial date for August 19, 1996.
The prosecution, appellee and appellee's attorney all testified the entire seventeen-month delay was attributable to ongoing good faith plea negotiations.3
The prosecution testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Balderas v. State
... ... Crim. App. 2007) (noting that evidence of flight evinces a consciousness of guilt). 17 Gonzales v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 18 Id. (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) ). 19 State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 821–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 20 Gonzales, 435 S.W.3d at 808–09. 21 Id. at 809 (citing Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ). 22 Johnson v. State, 954 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 23 Dragoo, 96 S.W.3d at 314 (quoting Doggett v ... ...
-
Hernandez v. State
... ... v. Carmichael?, 53 Okla. L.Rev. 507, 513 (2000) ... 50. Erica Beecher-Monas, Blinded by Science: How Judges Avoid the Science in Scientific Evidence, 71 Temple L.Rev. 55, 82 n. 186 (1998) ... 51. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim.App.1997) ... 52. State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex. Crim.App.1999) ... 53. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89 ... 54. Id. at 87; Stewart v. State, 44 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) ... 55. Jackson, 17 S.W.3d at 672 ... 56. Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (trial judge needs discretionary ... ...
-
State v. Manley
... ... Apparently, the State offered to reduce Lewis's charge to a Class "C" misdemeanor, but Lewis ultimately rejected the offer. 5 Any delay attributable to good faith plea negotiations should not be weighed against the State. State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 824 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). However, we may presume from the record that the court attributed a delay of no more than three months to the parties' plea negotiations based on ... 220 S.W.3d 124 ... the dates in the notice settings which appear in the record. See Zamorano, 84 ... ...
- State v. Davis
-
Pretrial Motions
...U.S. 302, 106 S.Ct. 648, 654, 88 L.Ed.2d 640 (1986). Constitutional speedy trial motions focus on post-indictment delay. State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). §12:63 T EXAS C RIMINAL L AWYER ’ S H ANDBOOK 12-24 §12:63.1 Factors for Examination There are four factors to be e......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), §21:60 State v. Mungia, 119 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), §12:95 State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), §§12:63, 12:63.1, 12:63.2, 12:63.3, 12:63.5 State v. Neesley, 239 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), §16:52.5 State ......
-
Misdemeanor Defense
...to the defendant as a result of the delay. [ Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); State v. Munoz , 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).] This requires judging each case on a case-by-case basis. There is no speedy trial violation where the defendant fails t......
-
Pretrial Motions
...U.S. 302, 106 S.Ct. 648, 654, 88 L.Ed.2d 640 (1986). Constitutional speedy trial motions focus on post-indictment delay. State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial guarantee protects the accused from arrest or indictment through trial, but does......