NO. 07-08 -020 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 1, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CHARLES H. HARRISON, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR TAT LAW NO. 1 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 497,399 ; H ON ORABLE L.B. “ RU STY ” LAD D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and PI RTLE, JJ ., OPIN ION App ellant , Charles H. Harrison, w as con v icted followi ng a jury trial of driv ing w hile intoxicated . Th e cou rt a ssessed se nte nce a t 180 days conf inem entand a $2,0 00 f ine– all of w hic h was sus pended in fav or of tw enty -fo ur

months of communi ty su per v is ion .2

Appel lan t’ s s ing le is sue on appeal is w hether the tr ial cour t er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion for dis mis sal bas ed upon a v iol ati on of hi s c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial . W e aff ir m. Back ground On Nov ember

27, 2005, Appel lan t was sto pped by Serg eant Lel and H ufstedl er of the Lub bock Po lice Departm ent , at ap proximate ly 1:30 a.m . for driv ing w ithou t hea dlights. W hen SergeantHufsted ler spoke wi th Ap pellan t, he dete cted the sm el l of alcoho lic bev erag e emanat ing from hi s p erson. W hen as ked, Appel lan t respon ded t hat h e had been dr ink ing ear li er . Serg eant Hufst edl er obs er v ed th at A ppel lan t was unst eady on his feet and lean ed o n his v ehic le wh ile w alking on the sidew alk. He radioed Corporal Jimm y Altgelt of the LPD –DW I Uni t to tak e ov er the inv est ig ati on. After admini ste ri ng three s tandardiz ed field so br iety

tes ts, C or poral Al tg eltdete rmi ned Ap pel lan t was dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated and pla ced him under

ar re st. Ap pel lan t l ater dec li ned t o prov ide a breath sampl e. On J anuar

y 11, 2006, the S tate filed an a nnounc ement i ndi cat ing i t was re ady for tr ial . Al thoug h nei ther

Appel lan t nor

the Stat e f il ed anymoti ons for c onti nuanc e, t he tr ial court rep eat edly reset the dat e for the pre-trial hea ring unt il the hea ring w as ultim ate ly held Janua ry 17, 2007. Thereafter, the tr ial co urt re peatedl y re set the tr ial date unti l Appel lan t w as tr ied M arch 10- 11, 2 008. A w eek p rior to trial, Appe llant f iled a m ot io n to dism iss asserting that his cons ti tuti onal r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial had been v iol ated. D uring the tw enty-s ev en month sT he t r i al cour t i ndi cat ed t hat 200 t o 250 m i sdem eanorcases wer e f i l ed i n t he co ur t each m ont h an d, 1 i n a dd i t i on t o p re-t ri al proc ee di ng s , th e tri al co urt co nd uc t ed t w en t y -four t o t w en t y -fi ve juryt ri al s ea c h y ea r. 3 that had pas sed si nce his ar re st, Appel lan t ass erted that the Stat e and t he c our t had fail ed to ta ke dispo sitiv e actio n an d, as a resu lt, relevant w itnesse s might not be av ailable to aid his defense. On M arc h 10 , 20 08 , th e tr i al c ou rt he l d a he ar i ng o n Ap pe l l an t’ s s pe ed y - tr i al c l ai m. App ellanttestif ied th at, b ecau se of the de lay, h e m ight not be able to conta ct a w itness w ho h ad a ccom pan ied him throu ghout the nig ht prior to his arrest and w itnesse d the traf f ic sto p and ev ents l eadi ng to his ar re st. H e tes ti fied th at, dur ing the del ay , t he w it ness had mo v ed to W y om ing, and he last spoke w ith the w itness six mon ths prior to th e f iling of his mo tion. Althou gh he had a telep hon e nu mb er for the wi tne ss, he was unsure w het her it w as a w orking nu mb er. T he Sta te prese nte d no evidence. T he trial co urt accep ted fault for th e del ay

noti ng thatthe del ay

w as due to the cour

t’ s cas elo ad. The tri al cour t den ied 1 App ellant ’s mot io n an d aske d if both sides w ere read y for trial. Appellan t re-urged his moti on and the t ri al cour t den ied the moti on a sec ond t ime. Thereafter, Appel lan t and t he Sta te ind icated they were read y for trial. After the State rest ed, A ppel lan t ag ain re- urg ed hi s s peedy-t ri al cl aim. H e as ser ted tha t, ha d the re bee n no delay, he would have bee n able to call the wi tne ss ident if ied in his moti on to “ tes ti fy about [Appel lan t’ s] w hereabouts and act iv it ies the ev eni ng i n q uest ion .” W it hout sta ti ng how

the w it ness ’s tes ti mony woul d be benefic ial to the d efense, A ppel lan t4

ind ic ated t h a th e w a s p rej u d i c e d b e c a u s e h i s t e s t i mo n y wo u l d “ c o u n t e ra cts o me o f t he ev ide nce that’ s b een i ntroduce d by the Stat e.” The t ri al cour t ag ain deni ed th e moti on. Fol low ing the two day

tr ial , the jur

y conv icted Appel lan t of dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. Puni shmentw as ass ess ed by the cour t and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. Discus sion Appel lan t as ser

ts his r ig ht to a speed y tr ial w as v iol ated by the tw enty-s ev en month del ay . He cont ends his defense w as preju dic ed becaus e he los t c ontact w it h a “ potent ial w itness” w hose testim ony w ould have “coun teract [ed ] som e of the evidence t h a t[wa s] introd uced bythe St ate ” at trial. I. St and ard o f Rev iew I n re v i e wi n g t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s ru li n g o n A p p e ll a n t ’s sp e e d y-t ri a l c la im , we a p p ly a bifurcat ed sta ndard of rev iew : an abuse of di sc re ti on s tandard for factual co mponents and a de nov

o sta ndard for

l eg al componen ts. Can tu v . St ate , 253 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 82 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) ; Zam or ano v . St ate , 84 S .W .3 d 64 3, 6 48 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 200 2). W hile ou r review

nece ssarily

inv olves fa ctua l and legal conclu sions, h ow the se tw o inte rrelate “as a wh o le . . . is a pu rely legal q uest ion.” Can tu , 253 S.W .3d a t 282 ( q uoti ng Zam or ano , 84 S.W .3d a t 648 n.19 ). Thi s i s pa rtic ula rl y so here w here the facts are not dis puted.5

II. Th e R ig htt o a Sp eedy T rial The r ig ht t o a s peedy

tri al atta ches once a person is arrest ed and charg ed. Can tu , 253 S. W .3d a t 280 . Con sti tuti onal speed y -t ri al cl aims are anal yz ed on an ad h oc basi s b y w eig hin g and then bal anci ng the four fact ors s et forth i n Bar ker v. Wingo , 407 U .S. 514, 92 S. Ct . 218 2, 33 L.E d.2d 101 ( 1972 ). T h e se four factors a re : ( 1) l eng th of del ay , ( 2) re ason for th e del ay , ( 3) as ser ti on of the ri g ht, and (4 ) p rejud ic e to the a cc used. Can tu , 253 S. W .3d a t 280 . W e c onside r th e four factors t og ether

al ong w it h the rele v ant circumsta nces n oting tha t no o ne facto r possesse s “talisman ic q ualities. ” Zam or ano , 84 S.W .3d a t 648 . W hil e the Sta te ha s t he burden of jus ti fyi ng the len g th of t he del ay , t he defendant has the b urden of prov ing the ass erti on of the ri g ht an d s how ing preju dic e. See E x p ar te McKenz ie , 491 S.W .2d 1 22, 1 23 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1973) . The defendant’ s b urden of proof o n t h e la tt e r two fa ct o rs va ri e s in ve rs e ly wit h t h e S t a t e ’s d e gre e o f cu lp a b il it y fo r t h e d e la y, i. e., the g re ater

the Stat e’s bad faith or off ic ial neg li g ence and t he l ong er i ts act ion s d ela y a trial, the less a defend antmustshow actu al prejud ice or prove dili gence in asse rting his ri g ht t o a s peedy

tr ial . Can tu , 25 3 S. W .3 d a t 2 8 0 - 8 1 ( c i t i n g Rob ins on v . Whitley, 2 F. 3d 562, 570 ( 5 C ir . 199 3) ).

th6

A . Len gt h of

D elay The Bar ker tes t i s t ri g g ered by

a de lay

thati s u n re a so n a ble enoug h to be presumpt iv ely

preju dic ial . Dog g e tt v. United S tates , 505 U .S. 647, 652 n. 1, 11 2 S. Ct . 2686, 120 L. Ed.2d 520 ( 1992) . W hil e the re i s n o s et t ime ele ment that tr ig g ers a Bar ker anal y si s, the C our

t of Cr imi nal Appea ls has hel d tha t a del ay of four mont hs is i nsuffici ent w hil e a s ev enteen- month de lay i s s uff ic ien t. Can tu , 253 S.W .3d a t 281 ( col lected c ases ci ted t herein ). Here, tw enty-s ev en month s p ass ed betw een Ap pel lan t’ s a rrestand his as ser ti on of his speed y -t ri al cl aim. W e find thi s fact or w eig hs in fav or

of Appel lan t. Si nce the t ri g g er ing m e ch a n ism ha s b e e n m e t, w e co n sid e r th e th re e rem a in in g Bar ker factors. B. Rea son for

t he Del ay W e n e xtco n s id e r t h e re a s o n (s ) t h e S t a t e p ro vid e d in a n a tt e m p tt o ju s t ify t h e d e la y. Bar ker , 407 U .S. at 53 1; Zam or ano , 84 S.W .3d at 648-50 . Som etim es, th e gov ernm ent ’s jus ti ficat ion s u nder

this prong should be g iv en g re ater or l ess er w eig ht, dependi ng on t he re l a t i v e me r i t o f t h e re a s o n s w h i c h are g iv en. Bar ker , 407 U.S. at 53 1. A “neu tral” justif ication such as an ov ercrow ded docke t or me re negligence “shou ld be weig hte d less hea v ily but ne v erthe less shou ld be con sidered si n c e t h e ultim ate respon sibility for such circumsta nces m ust rest w ith the g overnme nt rath er than w ith the defend ant .” Id.7

T he St ate ann oun c e d i t s r ead iness for trial in i ts f iling on Ja nua ry 17, 20 06, less tha n tw o mo nth s followi ng Appe llant’s a rr e s t . Ne ither pa rty sought an y

contin uan ces. Rat her , the tri al cour

t assumed respon si bil ity for the del ay

because itconti nual ly

resetthe pre- tr ial heari ng and tr ial date s d ue to i ts crowded doc ket . Acc ordin g ly , t he s econd Bar ker factor w eig hs onl y

sl ig htl y i n fav or of a findi ng of a s peedy tr ial v iol ati on. C. Ti meli ness o f A ssert ed Spe edy -T rial C laim T he th ird fa ctor is concerne d w ith the timeline ss of a defend a n t’s assertion of his ri g ht t o a s peedy

tr ial . See B ar

ker , 407 U .S. at 5 29, 5 31- 32; Zam or ano , 84 S.W .3d a t 648 , 651- 52. Al thoug h the d efendant has no d uty to br ing hi msel f to tr ial , he does hav e a re spons ibi li ty

to ass ert hi s r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial . Can tu , 253 S.W .3d at 282 . Noneth eless, f iling for a dismissa l before seeking a spee dy trial generally w eake ns a spee dy- trial claim becau se it ind ic ates a de si re to hav e no tr ial i nst ead of a s peedy one. Id. at 283. W hen thi s o cc urs, the d efendant shoul d prov ide cog ent reas ons for th is fail ure to seek a s peedy tr ial before dis mis sal . Id. In tw enty-s ev en month s b etween Ap pel lan t’ s a rrestand tr ial , Appell ant d id not s eek a s peedy

tr ial . Then, only

a w eek before t ri al, he s oug ht a dis mis sal bas ed on a s peedy trial v iolation w ithou t of fering any explanat ion for his delay in assert in g his rig hts. Acc ordin g ly , t his factor w eig hs heav il y

ag ain st findi ng a s peedy tr ial v iol ati on.8

D. Prej ud ice Beca use pretr ial del ay

i s o ften both ine v it abl e and w hol ly j ust if ia b le, Can tu, 253 S.W .3d a t 285 , t he fourt h Bar ker factor ex amines w hether and to w hat e xtent the d ela y has preju dic ed the d efendant. Bar ker , 407 U.S. at 532. Preju dic e “ shoul d be ass ess ed i n the li g ht of the i nterest s o f defendants w hic h the sp eedy tr ial r ig ht was desi g ned t o protect.” Bar ker , 407 U .S. at 53 2. There are three suc h int erest s: (i ) to prev ent oppress iv e pretr ial inc arcerati on; ( ii ) to mi nimi z e anx iety and co n ce rn of the ac cus ed; a nd ( ii i)to li mit the poss ibi li ty

thatthe defense w il l be i mpaired. Id. Appel lan t di d notas ser t t hat h e s u f

fe re d from “ oppress iv e pretr ial i ncarcerati on,” anx iety , or

co ncer n. He ass erts that, bec ause o f the del ay , a potent ial w it ness w as una v ailable . He also indicate d tha t the missing w itness’s te stimo ny would “counte ract som e o f t h e e v i d e n c e ” i n t ro d u c e d b y t h e S t a t e w i t h o u ti n d i c a t i n g w h a tt h e m i s s ing w it ness ’s tes ti mony

woul d s how

or w hat e v id e n ce i n troduce d by the Stat e woul d be count eract ed. To est abl is h par

ti cul ar iz ed preju dic e based on an unav ail abl e w it ness , a defendant mu st presen t proof

both of the ef forts ma de to locate the wi tne ss and thatt h e w itness w oul d hav e ben e f itted h is defense. See P hipps v. State , 630 S.W .2d 9 42, 9 47 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1982) ; Ma br a v . St ate , 997 S.W .2d 7 70, 7 80 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet. re f’d) . Appel lan t di d nei ther . Thus, he fail ed to es tab lis h p a rtic ula ri z ed preju dic e at the9

hear ing before the t ri al court. Thi s fact or w eig hs ag ain st a findi ng of a s peedy tr ial v iol ati on. E. We ighing of Bar ker Fact ors In t his ca se, the len g th of the del ay w eig hs in fav or

of findi ng a v iol ati on of the ri g ht to a sp e e d y tria l a n d th e rea so n s fo r th e de la y we igh on ly sligh tl y in fa vor o f f in d in g a v iolation . Th ese two fa ctors are outw eighed by the rema ining facto rs. App ellant ’s fa ilure to t imel y as ser t hi s ri g ht to a speed y

tri al and his choic e of

remedy ( dis mis sal ) ind ic ates he acquiesced in the de lay extenua ting any pre s u m p tiv e prejud ice. Moreover, Appe llant’s evidence o f

particularized prejud ice, if any, is extremely marginal at best . Th us, th e last a n d m o s tim p o rt a n tfa ct o r we ig h s a ga in s ta f in d in g o f a sp e e d y t ri a l vi o la t io n . Ac c o rd in gl y, based on the ev ide nce present ed in thi s cas e, w e find the tr ial cour t did not er r in it s det ermin at i on t ha t Ap pe l l an t’ s r i g htt o a s pe ed y t r i al w as n otv i ol at ed a nd o v errule Appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med. Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Jus ti ce Publ is h.