State v. Shockley
| Decision Date | 10 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 117,216,117,216 |
| Citation | 494 P.3d 832 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Bruce T. SHOCKLEY, Appellant. |
Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, Topeka, KS, argued the cause, and Sam Schirer, of the same office, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Lois Malin, assistant district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, Topeka, KS, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Bruce T. Shockley was convicted of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and criminal possession of a firearm. As a result, he received a hard 25 life sentence consecutive to 216 months in prison. Shockley now appeals on theories of speedy trial violations and insufficient evidence. Finding no error, we affirm his convictions.
Shockley was arrested and charged with his crimes after driving by and firing shots indiscriminately into his ex-girlfriend's house, killing her father. The drive-by occurred after Shockley's ex, Rachel Smith, reported his domestic abuse to law enforcement, prompting Shockley to confront and threaten Smith by text message. Three people riding in the vehicle with Shockley at the time of the shooting would later testify against him at trial.
This case was filed on December 22, 2014, and Shockley was arrested on warrant the next day, when he also had his first appearance. Shockley's preliminary hearing was held February 20, 2015 after which he waived arraignment. A jury trial was then scheduled for June 15, 2015.
Before that trial could happen, Shockley's first attorney was permitted to withdraw. Appearing at a status conference on May 8, 2015, Shockley moved for a continuance of the jury trial because his new counsel needed more time to prepare for trial. The following exchange is from that status conference:
After the hearing and off the record, a new trial date was set to begin September 28, 2015.
On September 24, 2015, the district court held a motion hearing, which included the State's request for a continuance of the jury trial because one of the lead detectives (and an anticipated Jackson v. Denno hearing witness) was having medical issues. After discussing the detective's medical issues, the State continued:
(Emphasis added.)
Sometime after this hearing, trial was apparently scheduled to begin January 11, 2016. We only know that, however, because of later references in the record and a notation on a docket sheet that indicates the trial was again continued—this time by the court without hearing—to May 9, 2016.
On May 5, 2016, Shockley filed a motion asserting a violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. On May 6, 2016—three days before the scheduled trial—the district court held a hearing on the motion, which it ultimately denied. During that hearing, defense counsel attempted to have the district court clarify and make rulings on several points, including whether Shockley's waiver on May 8, 2015, was unconditional; if so, whether Shockley's objection to trial continuance on September 24, 2015, reasserted his speedy trial rights; which delays were attributable to whom; and whether Shockley acquiesced to the court's delay. Shockley validly asserted that he was questioning the court because he had the responsibility to create a record which could be reviewed on appeal. See State v. Espinoza , 311 Kan. 435, 436, 462 P.3d 159 (2020) ().
It appears from the record that some—but clearly not all—transcripts from the earlier hearings were available to the court at the May 2016 motion hearing. With only three days left before trial, the defense did not want to risk another continuance for the rest of the transcripts to be produced for the court's review. Consequently, the motion hearing proceeded without all the transcripts from the hearings of May 8, 2015, and September 24, 2015.
No additional evidence was presented at the May 6, 2016 motion hearing. After arguments from both counsel, the following exchange occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kellner
... ... defendant to determine whether the State violated a ... defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial ... Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, ... 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); State v. Shockley , 314 Kan ... 46, 62, 494 P.3d 832 (2021). These factors are considered and ... weighed against one another, and no one factor is ... controlling. State v. Weaver , 276 Kan. 504, 506, 78 ... P.3d 397 (2003) ... Length ... of Delay ... ...
-
State v. Campbell
... ... Kansas. A conditional waiver has been addressed in the ... context of waiver of a speedy trial right to the effect that ... apparently a waiver can be subject to conditions as long as ... those conditions are explicitly stated. See State v ... Shockley , 314 Kan. 46, 55-56, 494 P.3d 832 (2021) ... ("If the defendant chooses to waive his speedy trial ... rights and does not otherwise say so, we must presume the ... waiver is unconditional.") ... A ... somewhat similar situation seemingly analogous to the ... ...
-
State v. Ford, 122,764
...have unlimited review when deciding if the State has violated a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial." State v. Shockley , 314 Kan. 46, 61, 494 P.3d 832 (2021). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: " ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall e......
-
State v. Galloway
...See Galloway , 311 Kan. at 246, 459 P.3d 195.Galloway offers no basis for us to reweigh those determinations. See State v. Shockley , 314 Kan. 46, 53, 494 P.3d 832 (2021) ("An appellate court does not reweigh conflicting evidence, evaluate witness credibility, or determine questions of fact......