On Point: 38. Speedy Trial, 6th Am.

State v. Ennis Lee Brown, 2015AP522-CR, District 1, 10/9/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The 14½-month delay in trying Brown didn’t violate his right to a speedy trial, as “all of the delays are attributable to the defense, and most are attributable to Brown’s poor behavior and inability to work with his assigned counsel.” (¶56). At the same time, the trial court didn’t err in allowing Brown to proceed pro se at the start of trial, as Brown’s “poor behavior and inability to work with his assigned counsel” don’t show Brown was incompetent to represent himself.

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2013AP1615-CR, District 1, 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Gonzalez-Villarreal’s challenge to his conviction for possessing child pornography based on claims that: his right to a speedy trial was violated; discovery restrictions violated his right to equal protection; other acts evidence was erroneously admitted; the trial court rejected his modified jury instruction on possession; the court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion.

State v. Lawrence L. Holmes, 2013AP2342-CR, District 4, 10/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Because Holmes can’t show that the court would have granted his motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charges in the case with prejudice, he hasn’t shown he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s advice to enter into a plea agreement because he was going to lose the motion to dismiss.

State v. Brian C. Beahm, 2013AP1678-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

An 12- to 13-month delay between Beahm’s arrest and the filing of OWI charges did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial.

Whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated depends on: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay;

State v. Thomas A. Jahnke, 2013AP1576-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated depends on: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant’s timely assertion of the speedy-trial right; and prejudice to the defense from the delay. Prejudice is assessed by considering pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the defendant,

State v. Malcolm A. Butler, 2014 WI App 4; case activity

The 120-day deadline for trying a case under the Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11(2), is explicitly “subject to” the speedy trial statute, § 971.10; thus, the Intrastate Detainer Act incorporates the provision of the speedy trial statute that allows for continuances for good cause, § 971.10(3)(a), and those continuances may go beyond the 120-day deadline.

State v. Michael T. O’Haver, 2011Ap2930-CR, District 2/4, 6/20/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Change of venue

The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying O’Haver’s motion to change venue, applying State v. Albrecht, 184 Wis. 2d 287, 306, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1994). There were a limited number of potentially objectionable pretrial media reports describing the homicide and distress of the victim’s family.

State v. Michael Lock, 2013 WI App 80; case activity

Multiplicity — conviction for conspiracy and for completed crime under  § 939.72(2)

Lock was convicted of conspiracy to solicit prostitutes and conspiracy to pander between 1998 and 2003. Based on conduct in four specific months in 2002, he was also convicted of four counts of soliciting prostitutes as a party to the crime and four counts of pandering as party to the crime.

Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC 11-9953, 4/29/13

United States Supreme Court order and opinions, dismissing, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari to review State v. Boyer, 56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

As explained in our post on the grant of certiorari, the issue was whether and how the state’s failure to fund indigent defense should count against the state in analyzing the defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim under Barker v.

Question Presented:

Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 2011)

Scotusblog page

The issue appears to be whether inability to assign counsel is a “systemic breakdown”