IN THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE

M AURICE C. LAND, § § No . 5 , 2 0 1 6
Defen d an t Bel o w- § Ap p el l an t

, § Co u rt Bel o w: Su p eri o r Co u rt § o f t h e St at e o f Del aware

v

. § §
STATE OF DELAW

ARE, § ID No . 1 4 0 80 0 7 67 5 A

§
Pl ai n t i ff Bel o w- § Ap p el l ee. §

Su b m i t t ed : No v em

b er 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
Deci d ed : J an u ary 1 0 , 2 0 1 7

Befo re HOLLAND

, VALI HURA , an d VAUGHN

, J u s t i ces

.

O R D E R

On t h i s 1 0 th d ay

o f J an u ary

2 0 1 7 , i t ap p ears t o t h e Co u rt t h at :

1

. Ap pel l an t

, M au ri ce La nd, a p p eal s fro m a Su p eri o r Co u rt ju ry v erd i ct fi n d i n g

h i m g u i l t y o f Ro b b ery Fi rs t Deg ree, Po s s es s io n of a Fi rearm Du ri n g t h e Co m m i s s i o n

o f a Fel o ny (“ PFDCF”), Co n s p iracy Seco n d Deg ree, Th eft

, T am p eri n g wi t h Ph y s i cal

Ev i d en ce, an d Res i s t i n g Arres t

. He m ak es on e cl ai m o n ap p eal

. He co n t en ds t h at h i s

Si x t h Am en dm en t ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al w a s v i o l a t e d b y th e fo u rt een m on t h d el ay

b et ween h i s arres t an d t ri al

.

2

. On Au gu s t 8

, 20 1 4

, Lan d was arres t ed i n co nn ect i o n wi t h an arm ed ro b b ery

t h at o ccu rred at a Do l l ar Gen eral i n Geo rg et o wn

. T w o o th er m en , Ch ri st o p h er Cl ay

an d Bo ok er M art i n , w e r e a l s o arres ted fo r t h ei r p art i ci p at i o n i n t h e ro b b ery

. Lan dw a s s u b s eq u en t l y i n d i ct ed o n a n u m b er o f ch arg es s t em m i n g fro m t h e ro b b ery o n

No v em b er 1 7

, 2 0 1 4 . He was n o t ab l e t o m ak e b ai l

.

3

. Ord i nari l y , d efen d an t s i n d i c t e d t o get h er s h o u l d be t ri ed t o g et h er. 1 Th e

Su p eri o r Co u rt s ch ed u l ed a jo i n t t ri al fo r Lan d

, Cl ay an d Mart i n t o b e h el d on M arch

9

, 2 0 1 5

. On Decem

b er 2 9

, 2 01 4, th e St at e co m p l i ed wi t h di s co v ery req u es t s

. A cas e

rev i ew was ori g i n al l y s ch ed u l ed fo r Jan u ary 5

, 2 0 15

. Th e m at t er was co n t i n u e d,

h o w e v e r , a t t h e d efen d an t s ’ req u es t. On Jan u ary 3 0

, 2 0 1 5

, Cl ay fi led a m o t i o n to

s u p p res s ev i d en ce, an d t h e co u rt s ch ed u l ed an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r

Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 5

.

4

. At t h e req u es t o f t h e St at e, t h e ev i d en t i ary h eari n g was co n t i n ued b ecau s e

t h e Dep u t y At t orn ey Gen eral as s i g n ed t o t h e cas e h ad o t h er m at t ers s ch ed u l ed fo r t h at

d ay

. Th e h eari n g was res ch ed u l ed fo r Ap ri l 1

, 2 01 5

. As a res ul t

, t h e jo i n t t ri al d at e

was res ch ed u l ed fo r Ap ri l 2 7, 2 0 1 5

. Th en o n M arch 3 1, 2 0 1 5

, M a r t i n ’ s co u n s el

req u es t ed a co n t i n u an ce b ecau s e h i s wi fe h ad h ad a b ab y

. Th e co urt res ch ed u l ed t h e

t ri al fo r J u n e 8

, 2 01 5

. In M ay 2 0 1 5

, M art in req u es t ed an o t h er co n ti n uan ce i n o rd er

t o ret ai n p ri v at e co u n s el . Th e jo i n t t ri al was res ch ed u l ed fo r J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 1 5

.

5

. On J un e 4

, 2 0 15

, Lan d fi l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i ss as s ert i n g h i s Si x th

Am en d m en t ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al

. On Ju n e 12

, 20 1 5

, Lan d ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was

1 Floudiotis v. State , 726 A.2d 1196, 1210 (Del. 1999).

2d en ied

.

6

. Th e t ri al co urt h el d t h e ev i d en t i ary h eari n g fo r Cl ay ’ s s up p res si o n m o t i o n

o n J un e 9

, 2 0 15

. Lan d an d h i s co u n s el t o ok n o p art i n t h e m o ti o n

. Th e m o t i o n was

d en ied

, bu t d e f

e n s e c o u n s el fo r bo t h Cl ay an d M art i n fi l ed a “ m ot i o n fo r

reco n s i d erat i on ” wh i ch was d en i ed o n J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

.

7

. On J u l y 1 4 an d 1 5

, 2 0 1 5

, b o th of Lan d ’ s co -d efen d an ts fi l ed m o t i o n s to

s ev er. On J ul y 1 7, 20 1 5

, t h e co urt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n s t o s ev er as t o t h e c o

d efen d an t s , b u t s ev ered s o m e o f t h e ch arg es

. In ad d i ti o n , co un s el fo r t h e co

d efen d an t s fi l ed o t h er m o t i o n s wi t h t h e co u rt

. Bo t h Cl ay an d M art i n fi l ed n ew

m o ti o n s t o s u pp res s t hat w ere d en i ed o n J u l y 2 4

, 2 01 5

. Cl ay fi l ed a m ot i on t o co m p el

ad d it i o n al d i s co v ery wh i ch was al s o d en i ed o n J u ly 2 4, 2 0 1 5

.

8

. Fi n al l y , d uri n g a co n feren ce o n J u l y 2 7

, 2 0 1 5, t h e d ay o f t ri al

, Lan d o b ject ed

t o t h e St at e’ s des ired u s e o f a s u rv ei l l an ce vi d eo o f t h e ro bb ery

. A n ev i d en ti ary

h eari n g was s ch ed u l ed fo r A u gu s t 25

, 2 01 5 wh i ch res u l t ed in a co n t i n u an c e o f t h e

t r i a l d at e t o Oct o ber 1 2, 2 0 15

. Th e co urt ru l ed t h at t h e vi d eo was ad m i s s i b l e, an d

t ri al b eg an o n Oct o b er 1 2

, 2 01 5

. Lan d was co n v ict ed an d l at er s en t en ced t o fi ft y

y ears o f Lev el V i n carcerat i o n fo r t he Ro bb ery ch arg e an d t h e PFDCF ch arg e, wi th

v ary i n g d eg rees o f p ro b at io n fo r t h e rem ai n i n g ch arg es . Th i s ap p eal fo l lo wed

.

9

. Lan d cl ai m s t h at t h e St at e v i ol at ed h i s Si x th Am en d m en t ri g h t to a s p eed y

3t ri al b ecau s e t h ere was a fo u rt een m o n t h d el ay bet ween h i s arres t an d h i s t ri al

. “ Th i s

Co u rt rev i ews cl ai m s al l eg i ng an i n fri n g em en t o f a co n s t i t u t i on al l y p ro t ect ed ri g h t d e

n o vo

. ” 2

1 0

. In Ba r

ker v

. Wi n g o
, t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt d ev el o p ed a

b a l a n c i n g t es t t o d et erm i n e wh et h er a d efen d an t h as b een d ep ri v ed o f h is ri g h t t o a

s p eed y t ri al u n d er t h e Si x t h Am en d m en t o f t h e Un it ed St at es Co n s ti t u t i o n

. 3 Th e co u rt

i d en t i fi ed fo u r fact o rs t h at s h o u ld b e co n s i d ered wh en d et erm i n i n g w h e t h e r a

d efen d an t h as been d ep ri ved o f h i s ri g h t t o a s p eed y tri al u n d er t h e Si x t h Am en d m en t :

“ t h e l en g t h o f t h e d el ay , t h e reas on fo r t h e del ay , t he d e f e n d a n t ’ s as s ert i o n o f h i s

ri gh t

, an d t h e p reju di ce t o t he d efen dan t .” 4 Th e fact o rs are rel at ed an d no o n e fact o r

i s co n cl u s i v e. 5

1 1

. A d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al “ at t ach es as s o on as t h e defen d an t i s

accu s ed of a cri m e th ro u g h arres t o r i n d i ct m en t wh i ch ev er o ccu rs fi rs t .” 6 Th e l en g th

o f d el ay i s a t h res ho l d fact o r. 7 Un l es s t h e l en g t h o f d el ay i s d et erm i n e d t o b e

“ p res u m p t i v el y p reju d i ci al ” th e co u rt d o es n o t as ses s th e ad d it i on al fact o rs

. 8 Th i s

2 Page v. State , 934 A.2d 891, 896 (Del. 2007).

3 Barker v. W

ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (adopted by this Court in Johnson v. State , 305 A.2d 622, 623 (Del. 1973)).

4 Barker

, 407 U.S. at 530.

5 Middlebrook v. State , 802 A.2d 268, 273 (Del. 2002) (citing Barker , 407 U.S. at 533).

6 Id. at 273.

7 Barker

, 407 U.S. at 530.

8 Id.

4Co u rt h as p rev i o u sl y d et erm in ed “ t h at i f t h e d el ay b et ween arres t o r i n di ct m en t an d

t ri al ex ceed s o n e y ear” t he Co u rt wi l l t h en co n s i d er t h e ad d it i on al th ree fact o rs

. 9 In

t h i s cas e, t h e d el ay b et ween Lan d ’ s arres t an d t ri al d at e (Au g us t 9

, 20 1 4 t o Oct o b er

1 2

, 2 01 5 ) i s g reat er t h an o n e y ear, an d t h erefo re an ex am i n at i o n o f t h e ad d i t i o n a l

Ba r ker fact o rs i s ap p ro p ri at e.

1 2

. W e n ex t co n s i d er t h e reas o n s fo r t h e d el ay

. Th e U n i t e d S t a t e s Su p rem e

C o u r t h a s fo u n d t h at d i fferen t wei g h t s h o ul d b e at t ri b u ted fo r t h e v ari o u s reas on s

cau s i n g t h e d el ay

. 1 0 Del i b erat e at t em p t s b y t he g o v ern m en t t o d el ay a t ri al s h o u l d b e

wei g h ed h eav i l y i n fav o r o f t h e d efen dan t

. 1 1 In t h e s am e v ei n , a defen d an t wh o

p ro l o n g s t h e m at t er can n o t s o lel y b l am e t h e g o v ern m en t fo r t h e res u l t an t d el ay

. 1 2

1 3

. Here, al m o s t al l o f t he d el ay w as cau sed b y d efen s e m o t i o n s , p art i cu larl y

t h e s u p p res s i o n m o ti o n fi l ed b y Lan d ’ s co -d efen d an t

, Cl ay , as w el l a s Lan d ’ s

o b ject i on t o t h e St at e’ s u s e of s u rv ei l l an ce fo o t ag e at tri al

. Th i s Co u rt h as hel d t h at

d el ay s cau sed b y a co -d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n s are “ n o t ch arg eab l e t o t h e p ro s ecu t i o n .” 1 3

W e h av e al s o s t at ed t h at d el ay s cau s ed b y a c o

- d e fen d an t ’ s m o t i o n s are n ot

9 Cooper v. State , 2011 W L 6039613 *1, *7 (Del. Dec. 5, 2011).

1 0 Barker , 407 U.S. at 531.

1 1 Id.

1 2 Cooper , 2011 W L 6039613, at *7.

1 3 Latson v. State

, 146 A.2d 597, 6 0 0 ( Del. 1958) (citing Garner v. State

, 1 45 A.2d 68, 75 (Del. 1958)).

5at t ri b u t ab l e to ei th er t h e St at e o r t h e d efen d an t

. 1 4 T h i s s eco n d fact o r d o es n o t wei g h

i n t he Lan d ’ s fav o r.

1 4

. Th e t h i rd Ba r

ker fact o r ex am i n es t h e d efen d an t ’ s as s ert i o n o f t h e ri g h t to

a sp eed y t ri al

. Here, Lan d as s ert ed h i s ri g h t i n t h e fo rm o f a m o t i o n t o di s m i s s fo r a

v i o l at i o n o f h i s ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al o n J u n e 4 , 2 0 1 5 . Th i s fact or fav o rs Lan d

.

1 5

. Th e fi n al fact o r, p reju d ice t o t h e d efen dan t , “ s h o u l d b e as s es s ed i n l i g ht

o f t h e i n t eres t s

. . . t h e s p eed y t ri al ri g h t was d es i g n ed t o pro t ect .” 1 5 Th e U n i t ed St at es

Su p rem e Co u rt h as i d en t i fi ed t h ree o f t hes e i n t eres t s : “ (i ) to prev e n t o p p res s i v e

p ret ri al i n carcerat io n , (i i ) t o m in i m i ze an x iet y an d co n cern o f t h e accu s ed ; an d (i i i )

t o l im i t t h e p os s i b i l i t y

t h at t h e d efen s e wi l l b e i m p ai red .” 1 6

1 6

. T h e fi rs t i n t eres t

, t o p rev en t o p pres s i v e p re-t ri al i n carcerat i o n , wei g h s in

fav o r o f Lan d b ecau s e h e was i n carcerat ed d uri n g t h e d el ay

.

1 7

. W i t h reg ard t o t h e s eco n d i n t eres t un d er t he p reju d i ce p ro n g , Lan d al l eg es

t h at t h e p re-t ri al i n carcerat i on cau s ed a great d eal o f s t res s an d ap p reh en s i o n

. In h i s

o p en in g b ri ef, Lan d ’ s co u n s el s t at es t h at L a n d “ was u n d er t he co ns t an t s t res s an d

ap p reh en s i o n o f h av i n g h i s l i fe fo rev er al tered b y t h e p os s i b i li t y o f a g u i l t y v erd i ct .” 1 7

Bas ed o n Lan d ’ s reco rd

, wh i ch was d i s cl o s ed b y Lan d ’ s co u n s el

, Lan d “ h as s p en t t h e

1 4 See Collier v. State

, 1988 W L 113300, at *2 (Del. Sept. 23, 1988) (holding that the continuances caused by a co-defendant were “not the fault of either party

. ”).

1 5 Barker , 407 U.S. at 532.

1 6 Id.

1 7 Appellant’s Opening

B r. at 16.

6v as t m ajo ri t y o f h i s li fe i n carcer a t e d

. ” 1 8 In 1 9 7 4

, Lan d was sen t en ced t o a t en y ear

p ri s o n t erm at th e ag e o f si x teen

. 1 9 Nex t in 1 9 7 9

, L an d was s en t en ced t o a t h i rt y -fo u r

y ear p ri so n t erm

. 2 0 Ho wev er, m ere as s er t i o n s o f s t res s an d ap preh en s i o n d o n ot

eq u at e t o t ru e p reju d i ce t o t h e d efen d an t

. Th i s fact o r d o es n o t wei g h i n Lan d ’ s fav o r.

1 8

. Lan d m ak es n o cl ai m t h at hi s d efen s e was i m p ai red i n an y way d u e t o t h e

d el ay i n tri al

. 2 1 T h u s , as a wh o l e, t h e fo u rt h Bark er fact o r d o es n o t wei g h in Lan d ’ s

fav o r.

1 9

. W h en al l fact o rs are co n s i d ered

, t h o s e carry i n g t he g reat es t wei g h t are t h at

s u b s t an t i al l y al l o f t h e d el ay was cau s ed b y p re-t ri al act i v i t i es o f Lan d an d h i s co

d e f e n d a n t s , an d Lan d was no t preju d iced i n t h e p rep arat io n o f h i s d efen s e.

Acco rd in g ly , Lan d’ s s peed y t ri al cl ai m m

u s t b e d en i ed

.

NOW

, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED t h at t h e ju d g m en t o f t he Su p eri o r

Co u rt i s AFFI RMED.

BY THE COURT:

/ s / J am es T. Vau gh n , J r. J u s t i ce

1 8 Id. at 8.

1 9 Id.

2 0 Id.

2 1 Id. at 15-16.

7