IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE :

:

:

:

:

 v. : I.D. No.: 2001015878

:

:

CARLOS B. CHAVEZ-MENDEZ, :

:

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

Submitted: 6/2/2020

Decided: 6/8/2020

John P. Daniello, Esq., 14 The Circle, 2nd Floor, Georgetown, DE 19947, Attorney for 

Defendant.

Michael H. Tipton, Esq., 114 E. Market Street, Georgetown, DE 19947, Deputy Attorney 

General Department of Justice, Georgetown, DE.

On January 26, 2020, Carlos B. Chavez-Mende] (3Defendant ́) was arrested for multiple 

counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, Assault Second 

Degree, Aggravated Menacing, Unlawful Imprisonment First Degree, Endangering the Welfare 

of a Child, and Malicious Interference with a Communication Device. Defendant waived his 

preliminary hearing on January 31, 2020. To date, no information or indictment has been filed. 

Defendant now moves for dismissal of all charges, arguing a violation of his right to a speedy 

trial and Superior Court Criminal Rule 48(b).

1

 1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 48(b) provides:
The Court assesses speedy trial claims utilizing the four-pronged balancing test adopted 

by the United State Supreme Court in the seminal case Barker v. Wingo.

2 In Barker, the Court 

held that courts should assess four factors in determining whether a particular defendant has been 

deprived of the right to a speedy trial: (1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the 

defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.

3 These four 

factors 3are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as 

ma\ be relevant. ́4

Defendant was arrested on January 26, 2020. To date, no information or indictment has 

been filed by the State.

5 3No specific length of delay automatically violates the right to a speedy 

trial; rather the length is μdependent on the peculiar circumstances of the case.¶ ́6 Considering the 

circumstances, the Court finds that the delay is not attributable to the State. Here, the delay is 

attributable to the present State of Emergency and the closure of court facilities.7 Such closure 

prevents the State from filing an information or indicting Defendant. Therefore, the Court finds 

the first two factors favor the State.

Concerning the third factor, Defendant has asserted his right to a speedy trial by filing the 

present motion to dismiss.

The fourth factor is prejudice to the Defendant. The Court finds no prejudice to the 

Defendant. Defendant¶s suffered anxiet\ is no worse than that suffered by other criminal 

 

If there is unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to a grand jury or in filing an information 

against a defendant who has been held to answer in Superior Court, or if there is unnecessary 

delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or 

complaint.

2 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182.

3 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 273 (Del. 2002) citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. 4 Barker, 407 U.S. at 533. 5 Defendant filed the motion to dismiss on May 21, 2020.

6 Dabney v. State, 953 A.2d 159, 165 (Del. 2008) citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530±31, 92 S.Ct. 2182. 7 Administrative Order No. 6, In re: COVID-19 Precautionary Measures (Del. April 14, 2020).
defendants. Therefore, considering the Barker factors, the Court finds Defendant¶s speed\ trial 

rights have not been violated. 

Defendant has also alleged a violation of Superior Court Rule 48(b). To warrant dismissal

under Rule 48(b), 3there must be an μunnecessar\ dela\¶ that is attributable to the State and μsuch 

delay must be established to have had a prejudicial effect upon defendant beyond that normally 

associated with a criminal justice system necessarily strained b\ a burgeoning case load.¶ ́8

3Such prejudice must be attributable to the prosecution and must have prejudiced the Defendant 

in some measurable wa\. ́9

Defendant has failed to demonstrate an unnecessary delay attributable to the State. As 

this Court already discussed, the delay is attributable to the State of Emergency and court 

closures. Furthermore, the Court does not find that Defendant was prejudiced beyond that 

normally associated with the criminal justice system.10 Defendant has not demonstrated any loss 

of evidence and his anxiety is no worse than any other defendant¶s in the criminal justice system.

Defendant has failed to show unnecessary delay attributable to the State, or any measurable 

prejudice to the Defendant beyond that of an ordinary party to the criminal justice system.

Therefore, dismissal pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 48(b) is not warranted.

Considering the foregoing, Defendant¶s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________

Richard F. Stokes, Judge

 8 State v. MacDonough, 2018 WL 501429, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2018). 9 Id. 10 See Id.