### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-99-00790-CR

Marisa Evette L ingle, A

ppellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LLANO COUNTY, 33RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR4875, HO NORABLE GUI LFORD JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appel

la nt Mari sa Evette Lin

gle gu ilty o f n egl ige

ntly causi ng seri ous bo dily i nj ury to a chi l d. SeeAct of May

27, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S. , ch. 497, § 1, 199 1 T ex. Gen. Laws 1742 (Tex. Penal

Code Ann . § 22.04(a)(1) , sin ce am ended). The j ury a ssesse d puni shm ent at incarc er at ion fo r o ne year and a $40 00 f i ne . SeeAct of May

29, 1989, 7 1st Le g., R.S., ch. 35 7, § 1, 198 9 T ex. Gen. Law s 144 1, 1442(Tex . Penal Code A nn . § 22.04 (g), si

nc e am ended). I n he rso le po intof e rr or , a ppe llant co nt ends she was deni ed her consti

tut iona l ri ght to a speedy

t r ial. We will ov er ru l e th i s c on ten ti on an d a f f i rm th e d i str i ct c our t’s j udgm en t. A crimi nal defen dant’s righ

t t o a speedy tri al

is guaranteed by

both the Uni

ted St ates and Tex as c onsti

tution s. Barker v. Wingo , 407 U .S. 514 (1 972); Hull v. State , 699 S.W.2d 220, 221 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 198 6) ; U. S. Co nst . a mends. VI , X IV ; Te x. Cons t. art. I, § 10. Appel

la te review of a tria l court’s deci sion to gran

t or deny a sp eedy tria l clai m i s con ducted de n ovo. Johnson v. State , 954 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997) . In conductin g this review, we mus

t bala nce2

four fact or s: ( 1) leng th of the del ay , (2) reason for the delay , (3) assertion of the ri

ght, and (4) prej udi ce to the a

ccus ed. Barker , 40 7 U. S. at 530 ; Johnson , 954 S.W.2d at 771. Length of delay. The off

ense took place i

n A pril 1994, but ap pe l l an

t wa s n ot in dicted un t il Feb ruary 1996. See Rivera v. State , 990 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. r ef’ d) (f orsp ee dy t r ial p ur po se s, len gt h o f de lay me as ur ed fr o m t ime d efe nd an t ar r es t ed o rfo r mally ch arged ). Appel la nt fi le d her f irst m ot ion to dismi

ss f or want o f a s

peedy trial in October 1998. No ac ti on was taken

on t his mot ion, but t he indict ment was dismissed o n t he St at e’s mo t ion t he fo llowing mo nt h. Ap pe llant wa s r ein dic t ed in Decem ber 1998. Appel

la nt agai n m oved to dism

is s on speedy trial grounds in

March 1999. This m

ot ion wa s heard a

nd overrul ed o n May

14. Appel

la nt’s trial began on Novem

ber 8, 1999. Reason for

the delay. Th e Sta

te b ea rs the bu rde n of just ify ing t he de lay, and if the record is sile nt it m ust be presum

ed that no valid reas on for de la y e xi sted . Turner

v. State , 545 S.W.2d 133, 137 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 197 6) . At t he hea ring o n app ellant’ s mot ion, t he Stat e off ered no ev i den ce addres si

ng th e rea son f or the de l ay

of a ppel l an t’s trial . Asser tion of th e r

ight. The def

endan t must show that she di

li gently asserted her

right to a sp eedy

tria l . State v. Hernandez , 8 30 S .W. 2d 6 31, 635 (T ex. App. —S an Ant onio 199 2, no pet.). The tw o m

oti on s to di sm

i ss wereappe l l an

t’s on l y as se rti on s of th e s pe ed y trial ri gh t. Prejudice. The

def endan t al so be ars t he bur den o f show ingpre j udi ceasa re sul

t of the delay . Id . At the hearing, appell ant test if ied that she lostcus t od y of her childre n in 199 4. The chi ldren were pla ced i n h er p are nts ’ h ome, a nd sh e is n ot permi tt ed to see them al

one. Appellant also suspected th at th e p en di n g i n di ctm en ts h ad ca us ed pote n ti al em pl oy er s to av oid

hi ri ng h er, al though3

she did no t “kno w fo r a fact .” Appe llant also not ed t hat she ha d been required t o rep ort to a prob ati on off ic e r week ly

as a condition of bai

l. Fi nal ly , appellan t t estifi ed that a pot ential

defense witness, a great uncle , had di ed whi le the case was pe

ndi ng. Appel

la nt expl ai ned that she b el ie ved that her ch

i l d’s sy m ptoms were t he r esu lt o f an inherit ed s eizur e diso rd er wit h which bo t h she a nd her great uncle

had b een di

agnosed. She ackn

owledged that ot her wi

tnesses were f

am il ia r with h er un cle ’s med ica l co nd it io n, bu t sh e w as no t su r e w he t he rt he y wo ul d b e a va ilab le t o t es t ify.

Balancing

factors. The alm

ost four-year delay

between the fili

ng of the fi

rst indict ment an

d a pp el l an t’s trial wa s s uf f i ci en t to tri gg er sp ee dy trial an al y sis. Be ca

us e th e S tate off ered no ex pl anati on f

or the de l ay, i

t mu st be pres um ed th at no val

i d reas on ex

i sted. Turner , 545 S.W.2d at 137. On the other hand, appel la nt wai ted alm ost t hree y

ears bef ore fili ng he rf i rs t moti on to dism iss an d there is no e vidence t ha t ap pe llan t ev er so ug ht a s pe ed y trial , as oppos ed to a dis miss al. Appe llant’s t rial beg an less t han o ne year aft er t he new indict ment w as r et ur ned, and thirteen months after she f irst moved to d ism

iss. The re is li tt le evi dence of prejudi ce resul ting f rom the delay . Appel

la nt lost custody of her childre n as a re sult of a n invest igat ion by child pr ot ect iveservi ce s w orke rs , n ot asa re sul

t of t he pendi ng cri mi nal acc usa t ion. Appe llant co nced es t hat she was not incarc er at ed p ending t rial, a nd she off ered no evi

dence t o s upp or t her sus picion t hat she had lo st job o ppo rt unit ies as a re sult of t he pend ingindict ments . T he nec essit y to re po rt t o t he probation off ic e was an i

nconveni ence, b ut it was far less pr eju dic ial t han inca rc er at io n pe ndin g t ria l. Wh ile t he d ea t h o f h er gre at uncl e depriv ed app ellant of a

potential def en se wi tnes s, the re was no s how ing t hat he wa s t he only witne ss through4

wh om app ellant co uld present her m edi cal defen se. To t he contrary, the record suggests that ot her witne sses were av

ai la ble. Co nsider ingal

l the c i rcum stan ces shown, w e concl

ude that the d

i stri ct courtdi

d n ot err by overruli ng the m ot ion to dismi

ss. The poin

t o f error is

overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: August 30, 2001 Do No t Publis

h