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

State v. Richard P. Flehmer, 2012AP534-CR, District 3, 9/18/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Delay of 29 months (22 of which attributable to state) between filing of complaint and trial, while presumptively prejudicial, didn’t violate 4-factor test for right to speedy trial:

¶15      Balancing all four factors, we conclude Flehmer’s right to a speedy trial was not violated.  Although the ­­­twenty-two month delay attributable to the State is a long period of time,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in 2008AP2735-CRNM (summary order)

Habeas Review – Speedy Trial 

Habeas relief denied on speedy trial challenge to 14-month delay between filing of complaint and scheduled start of trial, applying familar 4-part test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Although the first three aspects of the test work in West’s favor (length of,

State v. Dragisa Pavlovic, 2011AP2687-CR, District 2, 8/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Pavlic’s waiver of counsel so that he could represent himself at trial satisfied State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997).

¶8        As a precautionary measure, the trial court granted Pavlovic a Klessig evidentiary hearing.  We conclude the trial court’s waiver colloquy complied with Klessig.  

State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of the pending charge.