1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 08- 004- CR 2 - 08 - 00 5- CR J OHN AL F R E D C HR I S T M AS AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 97TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F M O NTA GU E CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A p p e l l a n t Jo h n A l fr e d C h ri stm a s w a s c o n v i c ted o f p o ss e ss i o n o f a pr ohi bi t ed w e a p o n a nd si x coun t s ofaggr avat ed assaul t . I n t w o poi nt s, A p p e l l a n t arg u e s th a t t h e tr i a l c o u rt erred b yd e n y i n g h i s m o ti o n to2 ... S eeU. S. Con s t . a m e nd . VI ; Te x. Con s t . a rt . I , § 10 . 2 d is m is s — c la im in g v io la t io n o fb o t h h isf e d e r a l a n d s t a t e r ig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l. 2 W e wi l l a f f i r m. II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND A tt he t i m e o ft he eve nt s unde r l yi ng t hi s ca se , Je an G r ego ry l i ved on a sm al l pa r ce l ofl an d nearSuns et , Texa s. Appel l antw ashe rl i ve- i n boy f r i end . G reg o ry l i v e d i n a d o u b l e -w i d e m o b i l e h o m e . S h e p rov i d e d roo m a n d b o a rd to a coupl e— Y al e C l ar k I I and Jenn i f erW el sh— and t hei rt w o chi l dr en i n a si ngl ew i de t r ai l eri n e xch ang e f orl abo ran d a ss i st anc e. O n t he dayi n que st i on, D ec em ber13, 2005 , t w o ot her chi l dr en w er e v i si t i ng— C l ar k’ s chi l dr en f r om a pr i orm ar r i age. D ur i ng t he ea r l y even i ng ofD ec em ber1 3, by al l acco unt s, A ppe l l antan d C l ar k got i nt o a he at ed ar gum entw hi l e u nl oad i ng Appel l ant ’ s veh i cl e. Cl ar k a nd W el sh att r i but e t he ar gum ent t o Appel l ant ’ s hav i ng be en i nt oxi ca t ed. Appel l ant t es t i f i ed t hatt he ar gum entes ca l at ed f r om hi s hav i ng c onf r ont ed C l ar k a bout C l a rk’s havi ng po ssi bl y st r uck one of t he chi l dr en i n t he f ace. A tt hi s poi n t, C l ar k a nd W el sh ga t her ed t he f ourch i l dr en i nt o t hei rca ran d a t t em pt ed t o l ea ve t he pr em i ses.3

Ther e i s n o d i s p u t e t h a t d u r i n g t h e i r a t t e m p t t o l e a v e , Ap p e l l a n tf i r ed a hand gun att he vehi cl e, successf ul l y hi t t i ng i tt w i ce. C l ar k and W el sh t est i f i ed t hatA ppe l l anthad br and i sh ed hi s gun and f i r ed att hem bef or e t heyr ea che d t he gat e t o e xi tt he pr ope rt y. Appel l antt es t i f i ed t hathef i r ed se ver als hot s att he v e h i c l e i n s e l f-d e fe n s e b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n p i n n e d u n d e r th e g a te d u ri n g h is at t em pt s t o pr eventC l ar k and W el sh fr om l eavi ng w i t h t he chi l dr en— concer ned C l a r kmi g h th a r m t h e m. S hort l y af t ert he vehi cl e m ade i tt o t he hi ghw ay, i tb r oke dow n. W el sh r an t o a nea r by hous e, ca l l ed t he pol i ce , and r epo rt ed w hatha d oc cur r ed. The nextday, M ontague C oun t ylaw enf or cem entexecut ed a sear ch w ar r antat A ppe l l ant ’ s and G r ego ry’ s r es i den ce . The of f i ce r s se i z ed a . 380 handgun an d a saw ed- of fsho t gun . A ppel l antw as charged w i t h possessi on of a pr ohi bi t ed w ea pon— t he sh ot gun— and w i t h s i x c ount s of agg r ava t ed as sa ul t . Appel l ant w a s a r r e s t e d t hes a m e d a y t he se a r c h w a r r a ntw a se xe c ut e d, Dec e m be r14, 2005. I nd i c t m e nt s f or t he s e of f e ns e s w e r e no t r e t ur ne d un t i l Ju ne 12, 20 06. D ur i ng t he t i m e bet w een h i s ar r estand i ndi ct m ent , and up u nt i l and af t er A ppel l ant ’ s j ur y t r i al , A ppel l ant r em ai ned i n j ai l . Th e t r i al court appoi nt ed A ppel l antan at t or ney on June 2 7, 20 06 . D espi t e havi ng cou rtappoi nt ed cou ns el , A ppe l l antf i l ed hi s ow n hand w r i t t en m ot i on t o di sm i ssal l ch ar geson3 ... A l t hough A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on do esnotci t e a s pec i f i c st at ut e, att he

hear i ng add r essi ng t hi s m ot i on, al l part i e s refe rt o T exas C ode of C r i m i nal P ro c e d u re 3 2 .0 1 . S eeTe x. C od e C r i m . Pr oc . A nn . art . 32. 01 ( Ver no n 2006) ( “W he n a def end antha s bee n de t ai ned i n c us t ody . . . t he [ cha r gess hal l be di sm i ss ed] . . . i fi ndi ct m ent. . . [ i s] notpr es ent ed aga i ns tsuch def end anton o rb e f o r e t h e la s td a yo ft h e n e x tt e r m o ft h e c o u rtw h i c h i s h e ld a ft e rh is c o m m i tm e n t or a d m i ss i o n to b a i l o r o n o r be fo re th e 1 8 0 th d a yafte r t h e d a te o f c o m m i tm e n t o r a d m i s s i o n to b a i l , w h i c h e v e r d a te i sl a te r.” ). T h e tri a l c o u rt det er m i ned t hatt he i ndi ct m enthad be en pr ope r l y pr es ent ed aga i ns tA ppe l l ant “bef or e t he l astday oft he next t er m oft he court . ” See i d. 4 ... A l t hou gh t he pr ohi bi t ed w eapon s cha rge and t he si x aggr avat ed assaul tchar ges w er e f i l ed und ersepar at e cause num ber s i n t he t r i al co urt , each o f th e p roc e d u ral d a tes a re p a ral l e l fo r b o th c a u se n u m b e rs, a n d th e tr i a l co u rt , upo n agr eem entbet w een A ppel l antand t he S t at e, gr ant ed a m ot i on of j oi nder pr i ort o t r i als o t hatbot h c aus esw oul d bet r i ed bef or e t he sa m e j ury. 4 Ju l y 10, 2006 , c l a i m i ng t heSt a t e ha d f a i l e d t o r e t ur n i nd i c t m e nt sw i t hi n 180 days. 3A p p e l l a n t w a i v e d arrai g n m e n t an d en tere d a w ri tten p l e a o f no t gu i l ty to e a c h c ha r geo n Ju l y 24, 2006 . 4O n A u g u st 16 , 20 06 , t he t r i al courtdeni ed A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss r ega r di ng w het her t he i ndi ct m ent w as br ought ti m e l y . A p retri a l h e a ri n g w a s se t fo r S e p tem b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 . A p p e ll a n t, anno unci ng no tr eady on Sep t e m b e r 2 5 , j oi ned t he S t at e i n agr eei ng t o r eset th e p r e t r ia l h e a ri n g fo r N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . W i th o u t th e a i d o f h i sc o u rt a pp oi nt e d a t t or ne y, App e l l a nta ga i n f i l e d s e ve r a l pr o s e m ot i on so n O c t ob e r9, 20 07 , none of w hi ch r ai sed t he i ssue ofhi s speedy t r i al r i ght. A ppel l ant ’ s t r i al w as ul t i m at el y set f or and began on N ovem ber 6, 20 07 . A ppel l antf i l ed another5 ... A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f ordi sm i ss al f i l ed on Novem ber7, 2007 , i s t he

onl ym ot i on speci f i cal l y m ent i oni ng hi s speedy t r i al r i ght. The heari ng w as c o n d u c t e d t o a d d r e s st h is m o t io n . B o t h o ft h e c o llo q u ie sd u p l i c a t e d in t h is opi ni on c ont ai n t he ent i r et y ofA ppe l l ant ’ s t es t i m ony att hi s hea r i ng. 5 pr o s e m ot i on t o di sm i sson Novem ber7, 2007 , al l egi ng a de ni alofhi s sp ee dy t r i al r i ght. The t r i al courthear d t hi s m ot i on on t he sam e dat e. A ppe l l antw ast he onl y pe r so n t o t es t i f y a tt he hea r i ng. T he f ol l ow i ng c o llo q u yt o o kp la c e b e t w e e n A p p e lla n ta n d h ist r ia l c o u n s e l: [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: A n d y o u w e r e a r r e s t e d f o rt h e s e c h a r g e s in Dec e m be ro f2005 ? [ A ppel l ant ] : Y es. Q . A n d h a v e y o u b e e n c o n t in u o u s lyin c u s t o d ys in c e t h a tt im e u p u n t il n o w? A . Y es. Q . A nd du r i ng t hat- -you ha v e c a use t o be f i l ed -

-act ual l y, i t ’ s a m ot i on pr epar ed by yo u, aski ng t he C ourt t o di sm i ss t hi s cause ort hese c a u s e sfo r d e n i a l o f s p e e d ytri a l ;[ 5 ] i s th a t co rr e c t? A . Y es. Q . D ur i ng t hatpe r i od oft i m e t hatt hi s ca seha s bee n pe ndi ng, ha ve you o rdo you have any con cer ns orpr obl em s t hatyou t hi nk w oul d ef f ect [s ic ] y o u rd e f e n s e a sf a ra st h e d e la yin t h e t r ia l? A . Y e s , o fc o u r s e . J u s tlik e t h e f ir s tw it n e s s , t h e t r a in e d , p a id pr of essi onal coul dn’ tr ecal l because i tw as over t w o year s ago. That w as hi s st at em ent , Bohan non, t hatw ass i t t i ng he r e b ef or e m e y es t er day .6

Q . W e ll, t h e la p s e o ft im e c e rt a in lyw o u ld e f f e c t[ s ic ] m e m o ry , I w o u ld su ppos e. I s t hata con ce r n? A . O h , v e rym u c h s o . A n d w h a te v e r -- Q . Le tm e a skan ot herque st i on. A nd asf aras t he del ay i s con ce r ned , m em or i esdo c han ge asf arast he f ac t s orr ec ol l ec t i onsar e c onc er ned ? A . O h, yes. A nd peopl e m ove. Y ou can’ t get ahol d of anybo dy. A ft er t w o year s, you do n’ tknow t he addr esses , phon e num ber s. Q . O ka y. I s t her e a ny p art i cul arw i t nes s t hatyou ha d w ant ed t o be p res e n t he re i n tr i a l tha t yo u w e re u n a b l e to b ri n g to th e C o u rt ? A . M r . R hod es, b utI w oul dn’ tkn ow - -h ave any i dea w her e h e l i v es n o w. Q . O kay. C a n y o u thi nk ofany ot herdi f f i cul t y t hatt he del ay has ca us ed you asf arasyou rde f ens e i s con ce r ned ? A . I t ’ s been j ustso l ong t hat- -t o geteveryt hi ng t ogether . A nd, l i ke I sa y , m e m o ri e sa n d , o f c o u r s e , th e d i s tri c t a tto rn e yh a sh a d tw o y e a rs w i th a l a w l i b ra rya n d a l l o f th e th i n g sh e h a sa c c e s sto w h e re I h a v e -- a n d h a v e n ’t b e e n a b l e to re a d a n e w s p a p e r. Q . O ka y. W el l , l etm e a ski tt hi s w ay: I s t he r e anyt hi ng e l se you w ant ed t o pr es entt o t he C ourti n r ega r d t o t hi s m ot i on? A . To - -j ustt he f act t hat ever yw her e el se i n t he U ni t ed S t at es, i ti s a p retty l e g i ti m a te ri g h t t h a t w e h a v e for a s p e e d ytri a l . E v e ry o th e r state i n the u n i o n w o u l d co n side r i t a fu n d a m e n tal ri g h t. Q . O k a y . Is t h a ta ll? A . Yeah. S hort l y af t er , t he f ol l ow i ng col l oqu y t ook pl ace dur i ng t he S t at e’ s cr ossexa m i nat i on:7

[ Pr osecut or ] : M r . C hr i st m as, as f aras M r . Rh o d e s g o e s, i s t hi s a per so n w ho w asa w i t nes s t o t he eve nt s t hatoc cur r ed t hatev eni ng? A . N o. H e w as a f r i end of M r . C l ar k’ s and t al ki ng w i t h M r . C l ar k had i n fo rm a ti o n tha t w a sn 'ti n the sta tem e n t. Q . O ka y. Have y ou a t t em pt ed t o l oca t e M r . Rhode s t hr ough your a ttorn e yo r an yo th e r a g e n c y ? I n o th e r w o rds , h a v e y o u m a d e atte m p ts t o subpo ena hi m orl ocat e hi s w her eabou t s? A . O t hert han t he nam e, I had no ot herw ay of- -I b el i eve I g ave m y a tto rn e yth e n a m eq u i te a w h i l e b a c ki n a l e tte r th a t w a s , l i k e , a fte r -- I m ean, he w asn’ tm y l aw yerunt i l seven m onths af t erI w as i ncar cer at ed som et i m e back. I t ’ s har d t o r ecal l . I t ’ s been a l ong t i m e i n t he cage. Q . S o a sf a ra sy o u k n o w , t h a t ’s a ll y o u h a v e d o n e t o t ryt o lo c a t e h im si nce . Do you k now w hen hem ove d? A . I m ean, you’ ve got t o und er st and, I ’ ve been t w o year s r i ght acr oss th e s tre e t w i th o u t a w i n d o w o r a p h o n e o r a c c e s sto -- Q . That ’ s nonr es pons i ve. Do you k now w hen hem ove d? A . I have no cl ue. Q . That ’ s t he que st i on. A . I ha ve no w ay ofkn ow i ng. Q . N ow , t he st at em entyou ’ ve m ent i one d ort hes e s t at em ent s t hathe m ade w oul d be r el at ed t o you ort o som eone el se? A . H e re l a te d to m e . H e w a si n c a rc e ra te d a c ro s s t h e s tre e t fo r a coup l e ofm onths. A f t erA ppe l l ant ’ s t es t i m ony, t he t r i alco urtt ookj udi ci alno t i ce oft he cl er k’ s r ecor d f oreach cause o facti on. T he t r i al courtal so t ook j udi ci al not i ce6 ... Th e t r i al co urtn ot ed t hatat t he t i m e o fsentenci ng, A ppel l antst i l l had

ro u g h l y3 5 d a y sre m a i n i n g o n e a c h o f h i stw o -y e a r s e n te n c e s . 8 t hatA ppel l anth a d b e e n appoi nt ed coun sel on Jun e 27 , 20 06 , and t hat A p p e l l a n t ha d ag ree d to re se t t h e S e p tem b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 p retri a l d a te to N ove m ber27, 2006 . The t r i alco urt den i ed A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ssan d t he j ury t r i alpr oce ede d. T w o d a y s late r, the j u ry fo u n d A p p e l l a n t gu i l ty o f al l co u n ts i n b o th i ndi ct m ent s. The j ury a ss es se d pun i sh m entatt w o year s’ i nca r ce r at i on f ort he w eapon s char ge and f oreach ofco u n ts o n e and t w o oft he assaul tchar ges. The j ury r ec om m enc ed t hatt hes e s ent enc esbes us pen ded an d t hatA ppe l l ant be pl aced on com m uni t y su p e rvi si on. The j ur y asses sed t w o year s’ i nca r ce r at i on on ea ch oft he r em ai ni ng fouras sa ul tco unt s w i t hout r ec om m end at i on. Bas ed on t he j ury’ s ver di ct , the t r i alco urtor der ed t hatA ppe l l ants erve t w o y e a r s ’ c o n f i n e m e n tf o rc o u n t st h r e e t h r o u g h s ix

— t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lt cha r ges — w i t h t he se nt enc est o r un c onc ur r ent l y. The t r i alco urtnot ed t hatt he j udgm entw ou l d r ef l ec t695 dayscr edi tt o Appel l ant ’ s se nt enc e o n e ac h of t hese counts . 6The t r i al cou rt su sp end ed t he se nt enc es f or t he w ea ponsch ar ge and f orco unt s onean d t w o o ft he as sa ul tch ar ge and pl ac ed A ppe l l anton com m uni t y s upe rvi si on f ora t ot aloff i ve yea r s. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.9 II I. D I SCU SSI ON In t w o p o in t s , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rte r r e d b yd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o di sm i ss. C i t i ng bo t h t he U ni t ed S t at es and Tex as C onst i t ut i ons, A p p e l l a n t s p e c i fi c a l l yc o m p l a i n sth a t h i sri g h t to a s p e e d ytri a l w a sv i o l a te d . A . Th e Ri ght t o a Sp eedy T r i al Th e Si xt h Am e nd m e ntt o t heUni t e d S t a t e sCon s t i t ut i on a nd a rt i c l e 1, sec t i on 1 0 of t he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on gua r ant ee an ac cus ed t he r i ght t o a s p e e d ytri a l . S eeU. S. C onst . am end. VI ; Te x. Con s t . a rt . I , § 10;see al so Za m o ran o v. S tate , 8 4S .W .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 7 (T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); O rand v. S tate , 25 4 S . W . 3d 56 0, 56 5 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 8, pet . r ef ’ d) . Texas c o u rt s a n a l y ze clai m s o f a d e n i a l o f th i s r i g h t, b o th u n d e r th e fed e ral an d sta te c o n s ti tu ti o n s , th e s a m e . S e eHa rr i s v. S tate , 8 2 7 S . W . 2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 6 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 19 92 ) . The r i ght at t aches once a per son becom es an “accused, ” t hati s, o n c e o n e i sa rre s te d o r c h a rg e d . United Statesv. Mar i on , 404 U. S. 307, 321, 92 S. Ct . 4 55, 4 61 ( 197 1) ( “[ I ] ti s ei t hera f or m ali ndi ct m entori nf or m at i on or el se t he act ual r est r ai nt s i m posed byar r estand hol di ng t o answ era cr i m i nal cha r ge t hatengaget he part i cul arpr ot ec t i onsoft he sp ee dy- t r i alpr ovi si on oft he S i x th A m e n d m e n t.” ). S upr em e C ourtpr ecedent r equi r es st at e court s t o anal yze f eder al const i t ut i onal speedy t r i al cl ai m s “on an ad hoc basi s” b yw e i ghi ng and t hen10

b a l a n c i n g th e fo u r Bar ker v. W i ngo f ac t or s: 1) l eng t h oft he del ay, 2) r ea so n f or t hed e l a y, 3) a s s e rt i on o ft her i gh t , a nd 4) p r ej ud i c e t o t hea c c us e d. 407 U. S. 5 1 4 , 5 3 0 , 9 2 S . C t. 2 1 8 2 , 2 1 9 2 (1 9 7 2 ); State v. Munoz , 991 S. W . 2d 818, 8 2 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); O rand, 25 4 S. W . 3d at 56 5. W hi l e t he S t at e has t he bur den ofj us t i f yi ng t he l eng t h ofde l ay, t he def end antha s t he bur den of p ro v i n g th e a s s e rti o n o f th e ri g h t a n d s h o w i n g p rej u d i c e . S ee Bar ker, 407 U. S. a t 5 3 1 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 3 ; s e ea ls o E xp a rteMc Kenzie , 491 S. W . 2d 122, 123 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1973 ) ( st at i ng t hat“ i fan ac cus ed m adea pr i m a f ac i e s how i ng ofpr ej udi ce, the S t at e m ustcar ry t he obl i gat i on of pr ovi ng t hatt he accused su f f er ed no se r i ous pr ej udi ce bey ond t hat w hi ch ens ued f r om t he or di nary a nd i n e v i ta b l e d e l a y ” ). T h e d e f e n d a n t ’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n th e l a tte r tw o fa c to rs

“ v a ri e s i n v e rs e l y ” w i th th e S ta te ’s d e g re e o f c u l p a b i l i ty fo r th e d e l a y . Robi ns on v. W hitley , 2 F. 3d 562 , 570 ( 5t h C i r . 199 3) ( ci t i ng D ogg ettv. United S tates , 505 U . S. 647, 657, 112 S . Ct . 268 6 , 2 6 9 5 (1992) ) . Thus , t he gr ea t ert he S t a t e ’s b a d f a it h o ro f f ic ia l n e g lig e n c e a n d t h e lo n g e ri t s a c t i o n sd e la ya t r ia l, t he l es s a d ef end antm us t sh ow ac t ual pr ej udi ce orpr ovedi l i gen cei n a ss ert i ng h i s ri g h t to a s p e e d yt r ia l . Ca n tuv. S tate , 253 S . W . 3d 273, 280– 81 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). Th e Barker

t es ti s t r i gge r ed by a de l ay t hati s unr ea so nab l e e nough t o be “pr esum pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al . ” D ogg e tt, 505 U. S. a t652 n. 1, 112 S. Ct . a t269311

n . 1 ( 19 92 ) . T h e r e i sn o s e tt i m e e l e m e n tt h a tt r i g g e r st h e a n a l y s i s , b u tt he cou rt of cr i m i nal app ea l s has hel d t hat a del ay of f ourm ont hsi s nots uf f i ci ent w h i l e a s e v e n te e n -m o n th d e l a yi s . Pe te v. S tate , 5 01 S. W . 2d 683, 687 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1973 ) ( “Appel l anthe r ei n w ast r i ed [ f orr ape ] ap pr oxi m at el y f our m ont hsaft erhew asbe nch w ar r ant ed f r om t he Texa s D ep art m entof C or r ec t i ons . I ti s ouropi ni on t hatt hi s sh ortpe r i od oft i m e c oul d i n no w ay be c o n s tru e d a s‘p re s u m p ti v e l yp rej u d i c i a l .’“); Phi l l i p s v. S tate , 650 S. W . 2d 396, 39 9 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 19 83 ) ( “A l t hou gh t her e i s no pr eci se l ength ofdel ay w h ic h ir r e f u t a b lyc o n s t it u t e sa v io la t io n o ft h e rig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l in a ll c a s e s , . . . a s e v e n te e n m o n th d e l a yi ss u fficie n t to ra i s e th e i s s u e .” ); see al so D ogg e tt, 5 0 5 U .S . a t 6 5 1 , 6 5 2 n . 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t. at 2 6 9 3 n .1 ( n o ti n g tha t co u rt s have gen er al l y f oun d post

- accusat i on del ay “pr esum pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al atl east as i tappr oaches one year ”) . O nce t he Ba r ker t esti s t r i gger ed, court s m ust an al yz e t he sp ee dy t r i alcl ai m by f i r stw ei ghi ng t he st r eng t h ofea ch oft he Barker f act or s and t hen bal anci ng t hei rr el at i ve w ei ghts i n l i ght of“t he cond uct ofbot h t he pr osecut i on and t he def endan t . ” Zam orano , 84 S . W . 3d a t648 ( quot i ng Barker, 40 7 U . S . at53 0, 92 S. C t . at21 92 ) . N o one f act ori s ei t her a n ec es sa ry or su f f i ci ent con di t i on t o t he f i ndi ng ofa dep r i vat i on oft he sp ee dy tri a l ri g h t. Id . Ins tead , t he f ourf act or s ar e r el at ed and m ustbe consi der ed t o g e t h e r a l o n g w i th a n yo th e r re l e v a n t c i rc u m s ta n c e s . Barker, 407 U. S . at12

5 3 0 , 9 2 S . C t. at 2 1 9 2 . A s no fac to r p o ss e ss e s “tali sm a n i c q u a l i ti e s,” c o u rt s m ustengage “i n a di f f i cul tand sensi t i ve bal anci ng pr ocess” i n each i ndi vi dual c a s e . Zam orano , 8 4 S. W . 3d at648 ( quot i ng Barker, 407 U. S. a t533, 92 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 2 ). D is m is s a l o ft h e c h a r g in g in s t r u m e n tw it h p r e j u d i c e ism a n d a t e d o n ly u p o n a fi n d i n g t h a t a n a c c u s e d ’ss p e e d ytri a l ri g h t w a sa c tu a l l yv i o l a te d . S ee S trunk v. United S tates , 4 1 2 U . S . 4 3 4 , 4 4 0 , 9 3 S . C t . 2 2 6 0 , 2 2 7 1 ( 1 9 7 3 ). Beca us e d i sm i ss aloft he cha r gesi s a r adi ca l r em edy , a w oode n a ppl i ca t i on of t he Barker

f a c t o r s w o u ld in f r in g e u p o n t h e s o c ie t a l in t e r e s tin t ry in g p e o p le accused ofcr i m e , r at hert han gr ant i ng t hem i m m uni zat i on becau se ofl egal e rro r. Ca n tu , 25 3 S . W . 3d at28 1. Thu s, court s m ustappl y t he Bar ker b a l a n c i n g te s t w i th c o m m o n s e n s e a n d s e n s i ti v i ty to e n s u re th a t c h a r g e s a re di sm i ss ed onl y w hen t he evi den ce s how s t hata def end ant ’ s ac t ualan d a s s e rte d i n te re s t i n a s p e e d yt ri a l h a sb e e n in fri n g e d . S ee Bar ker, 40 7 U . S . at 53 4– 35 , 92 S. C t . at21 92 ( r ej ect i ng defendant ’ s cl ai m ofa speedy t r i al vi ol at i on des pi t e a f i ve- yea rde l ay w hen t he r ec or d s t r ongl y i ndi ca t ed t hatt he def endan tdi d not act ual l y w anta speedy t r i al ) . Th e co nst i t ut i onal ri ght i s t hat o f a s p e e d ytri a l , n o t d i s m i s s a l o f th e c h a rg e s . Can tu , 253 S. W . 3d a t281. T h e a m o r p h o u sq u a lit yo ft h e rig h ta ls o le a d st o t h e u n s a t is f a c t o r ily se ver e r em edyofdi sm i ss aloft he i ndi ct m entw hen t he r i ghtha s bee n de pr i ved .13

Id . Thi s i s i nde ed a s er i ouscon seq uencebe ca us e i tm ea nst hata def end ant w ho m ay be gui l t y ofa se r i ous cri m e w i l l go f r ee , w i t houtha vi ng be en t r i ed. Id . Such a r em edyi s m or e s er i oust ha n an e xc l us i ona ry r ul e o ra r eve r sa l f or a n e w tri a l , b u t i t i sth e o n l yp o s s i b l e re m e d y . Id . B. S t andar d ofRev i ew In r e v ie w in g t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g o n a n a p p e lla n t ’s s p e e d y t r ia l c l a im , w e a ppl y a bi f ur ca t ed st and ar d of r evi ew : an abu se of di sc r et i on s t and ar d f or t he f act ual com pon ent s, and a de nov o st andar d f ort he l egal com pon ent s. Zam orano , 8 4S .W .3 d a t6 4 8 . R e v ie w o ft h e in d iv id u a l Barker fa c to rs nec es sa r i l y i nvol vesf a c td e t e r m i n a t i o nsan d l ega l co ncl us i ons , butt he bal anc i ng te s t a s a w h o l e i sa p u re l yl e g a l q u e s ti o n . Ca n tu , 253 S. W . 3d a t282. U nd ert hi s st and ar d, w e d ef ernotonl y t o a t r i alj udge ’ s r es ol ut i on of di sput ed f act s, b utal so to t he t r i al j udg e’ s r i ght t o dr aw r easonabl e i nf er ences f r o m th o s e fa c ts . Id. a t 281. I n a s s e s s i ng t he e vi de nc e a t a speedy t r i al hear i ng, the t r i al j udg e m ay com pl et el y di sr egar d a w i t ness’ s t est i m ony, based o n c r e d ib ilit ya n d d e m e a n o re v a lu a t io n s , e v e n ift h a tt e s t im o n yis unc ont r ove rt ed. Id. The tri a l j udg e m ay di sbel i eve any evi dence so l ong as th e re i s a re a s o n a b l e a n d a rti c u l a b l e b a s i sfo r d o i n g s o . Id. And al l oft he e v i d e n c e m u st b e v i e w e d i n the l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e to th e tr i a l j u d g e ’s u l ti m a te ru l i n g . Id. B e c a u s e A p p e l l a n t l o s t i n th etri a l c o u rt o n h i ss p e e d ytri a l c l a i m , w e14

p re s u m e that t he t r i al j ud ge r eso l ve d a nydi sp uted f ac ti ssu es i n the S t ate ’s f avor , and w e def ert o t he i m p l i ed f i ndi ngs off actt hatt he r ecor d suppo rt s. See i d. a t282. C . A nal ysi s oft he Barker F a c to rs 1. Length ofD el ay Th e l ength of del ay i s a “t r i gger i ng m echani sm ” f oranal ysi s oft he ot her Barker fa c to rs . Barker, 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 3 0

– 3 2 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 2

– 9 3 ; O rand, 2 5 4S .W .3 d a t5 6 6 . “ U n t il t h e r e iss o m e d e l a yw h ic h isp r e s u m p t iv e ly p rej u d i c i a l , th e re i sn o n e c e s s i tyfo r i n q u i ry i n to th e o th e r [ Barker] f act or s t hat go i nt o t he bal ance. ” Bar ker, 407 U. S. a t530– 32, 92 S . Ct . a t2192 –93. Pr es um pt i ve pr ej udi cedoe s notnece ss ar i l y i ndi ca t e a st at i st i ca l pr oba bi l i t y of pr ej udi ce; i tsi m pl y m ar ks t he poi ntatw hi ch court s deem t he del ay unr easonabl e enoug h t o t r i ggert he Barker i n q u i ry . D ogg e tt, 505 U. S. a t652 n.1 , 1 1 2 S . C t . at 2 6 9 1 n .1 ; Munoz , 99 1 S . W . 2d at82 1– 22 . Thi s Barker f act or“i s act ual l y a doub l e [ i ] nqu i ry. ” D ogg e tt, 5 0 5 U .S . a t 6 5 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t. at2 69 0. The f i r sti nqu i ry i s w het hert he del ay t r i gger s t he Barker a n a l y s i s . Id. If th e a n a l y s i si stri g g e re d , th e s e c o n d e n q u i ry“ c o n s i d e r[s ], a so n e fa c to r . . . th e ex ten t t o w h i c h the d e l a ystretc h e s b e y o n d the b a re m i n i m u m n e e d e d to t r i ggerj udi ci al exam i nat i on of t he cl ai m . ” Id.15

Th e Stat e conced es t hat t he al m ost t w ent y- t hr ee m onth del ay bet w een A ppel l ant ’ s ar r estand hi s eve n tual t r i al i s suf f i ci entt o t r i ggert he Barker ana l ys i s. W e ag r ee. W e a l so co ncl udet hatt he l eng t h i n de l ay, ev en t hough i n s m al l pa rtatt r i but abl e t o A ppe l l ant w hen he agr ee d t o a c ont i nua nce , w ei ghs agai nstt he S t at e.

2. R easons f ort he D el ay U n d e r Barker, “di f f er entw ei ghtsshoul d be assi gned t o di f f er entr easons” fo r th e d e l a y . Bar

ker, 40 7 U . S . at53 1, 92 S. C t . at 219 2. Thi s f act orseeks t o e n s u r e t h a tc o u rt sn o ts im p lyc o n c e n t r a t e o n t h e s h e e rp a s s a g e o ft im e w i th o u t ta k i n g in to a c c o u n t th e re a s o n su n d e rl y i n g th e d e l a y . S ee, e. g. , Rashad v. W al sh , 30 0 F. 3d 27 , 34 ( 1st C i r . 20 02 ) . Th e i nqu i ry i nt o causat i on i nvol ves a s lid in g s c a le : d e lib e r a t e lyd ila t o ryt a c t ic sm u s tb e w e ig h e d m o r e h e a v ily a g a i n s t th e S ta te th a n p e ri o d s o f d e l a yre s u l ti n g fro m n e g l i g e n c e . Bar ker, 407 U .S . a t5 3 1 , 9 2 S . C t . a t2 1 9 2 . F u rt h e r m o r e , v a lid re a s o n sf o rd e la ys h o u ld n o t b e w e i g h e d a g a i n s t th e S ta te . S ee Munoz , 9 91 S. W . 2d at82 4. A nd del ay w hi ch i s att r i but abl e i n w hol e or i n part t o t he def end ant ca n w ei gh a gai ns tt he d e fe n d a n t a n d m a ye v e n c o n s t it u t e a w a i v e r o f a s p e e d ytri a l c l a i m . S ee Barker, 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 2 9 , 9 2 S . C t . a t 2 1 9 1

– 9 2 (n o t in g t h a td e la ya t t r ib u t a b le s o l e l yto d e fe n d a n t “ m a yb e g i v e n e ffe c t u n d e r s ta n d a rd w a i v e r d o c tri n e ” ); see al soDi ckey v. Fl

or i da , 398 U . S . 3 0, 48, 90 S . Ct . 1564 , 1574( 1970)16

( Br enn an, J. , co ncu r r i ng) ( r ea so ni ng t hata def end antm ay be “d i se nt i t l ed t o t he speedy- t r i al safe g u a rd i n t he case ofa del ay f orw hi ch he has, orshar es, re s p o n s i b i l i ty ” ); United States v. A nder son , 9 0 2 F .2 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 0 (2 n d C i r.) ( hol di ng t hat t her e w as no s peedy t r i al vi ol at i on w hen, am ong ot herthings, def ense counsel agr eed t o del ays and conti nua n c e s fo rpur poses ofpl ea n e g o ti a ti o n s ), cert. denied, 4 9 8 U .S . 8 6 7 (1 9 9 0 ). Li ket he f i r stf ac t or , t he St at e a l so co nc ed es t hatt he r ec or d doe s not pr ovi de any val i d r eason f or t he del ay of A ppel l ant ’ s t r i al . W hi l e w e agr ee t hat t hi s f act orw ei ghs agai nstt he S t at e, t he rec o rd do es dem onst r at e t hat A ppe l l antag r e e d t o a tl e a s to n e c o n t i n u a n c e . F u rt h e r , t h e r e i sa l a c ko fa ny evi den cet hatt he St at e d el i be r atel y use d di l at ory t ac t i cs . Ev en t hough w e c o n c lu d e t h a tt h is f a c t o rw e ig h s a g a i n s tt h e S t a t e , itd o e sn o tw e ig h h e a v ily agai nstt he S t at e.

3. A ss ert i on oft he Ri ght W e n e x t c o n side r t h e ex ten t t o w h i c h A p p e l l a n t affi rm a ti v e l yso u g h t a s p e e d ytri a l . Barker, 407 U . S. at531– 32, 92 S. Ct . at2192 . The natur e o f t he sp ee dy t r i alr i ghtm ak es“ i ti m po ssi bl e t o pi npoi nta pr ec i set i m e i n t he p r o c e s s w h e n t h e r i g h t m u s t b e a s s e rt e d o r w a i v e d , b u t t h a t f a c t d oes not ar gue f orpl aci ng t he bur den of pr ot ect i ng t he r i ght sol el y on defendant s. ” Id. at527, 92 S. C t . at 219 3. Butev en t hough i ti s t he St at e’ s dut y t o br i ng t he17

d e f e n d a n tt o t r ia l, itist h e d e f e n d a n t ’s d u t yt o a s s e rtt h e rig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l. Id . at5 2 7

– 2 8 , 9 2 S . Ct . at2193 ( “W e t hi nk t he bett err ul e i s t hatt he def end ant ’ s as se rt i on of or f ai l ur e t o a ss erthi s r i ghtt o a s pee dy t r i ali s oneof th e fa c to rsto b e c o n s i d e re d i n a n i n q u i ryi n to th e d e p ri v a ti o n o f th e ri g h t.” ). W het herand how a def end antas se rt s t hi s r i ghti s cl os el y r el at ed t o t he ot h e r t h r e e f a c t o r s b e c a u s e t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s e f f o rt s w i l l be sh ap ed by th e m . Id . at531, 92 S. Ct . at2196 . “ The m or e s er i oust he de pr i vat i on, t he m or e l i kel y a def endan ti s t o com pl ai n. ” Id. Thus , t he d e f e n d a n t ’s a s s e rt io n o ft h e rig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l— o rt h e f a ilu r e t o a s s e rtit

— is e n t it le d t o s t r o n g e v id e n t ia ryw e ig h tin d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e rt h e d e f e n d a n tis b e i n g d e p ri v e d o f th e ri g h t. Id . a t 5 3 1

– 3 2 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 6 . F i l i n g fo r a d is m is s a l in s t e a d o fa s p e e d yt r ia l g e n e r a llyw e a k e n sa s p e e d yt r ia l c la im b e c a u s e i t s h o w s a d e s i re to h a v e n o tri a l i n s te a d o f a s p e e d yo n e . Ca n tu , 253 S. W . 3d at283. I fa def end antf ai l s t o f i r sts ee k a s pee dy t r i albe f or e s ee ki ng d is m is s a l o ft h e c h a r g e s , th e d e f e n d a n ts h o u ld p r o v id e c o g e n tre a s o n sf o rt h is fa i l u re . Id.;se ealso Pa rkerso nv. S tate , 942 S. W . 2d 789 , 79 1 ( T ex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.). Repea t ed r equ es t s f or a s pee dy t r i alw ei gh he avi l y i n f avo roft he def endan t , w hi l e t he f ai l ur e t o m ake such r equest s suppo rt s an i nf er ence t hat th e d e fe n d a n t d o e sn o t re a l l yw a n t a tri a l , o n l ya d i s m i s s a l . Barker, 407 U. S.18

a t 5 3 4

– 3 6 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 2

– 9 5 (“ [B ]a rri n g e x tra o rd i n a ryc i rc u m s ta n c e s , w e w o u ld b e re lu c t a n tin d e e d t o ru le t h a ta d e f e n d a n tw a s d e n ie d t h is con st i t ut i ona lr i ghton a r ec or d t hats t r ongl y i ndi ca t es . . . t hatt he def end ant d i d n o t w a n t a s p e e d yt r i a l .” ); see al so United S tates v. Pal m er, 537 F. 2d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 8 8 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) ( “ [T ]h e p o in ta tw h ic h t h e d e f e n d a n ta s s e rt s h is r i ght i s i m port ant because i t m ay r ef l ect t he ser i ousness of th e p e rso nal p rej u d i c e h e i se x p e ri e n c i n g .” ); Ha r r is , 8 27 S . W . 2d at 9 57 ( “[ A ] ppel l ant ’ s l ack o fa t im e lyd e m a n d f o ra s p e e d yt r ia l in d ic a t e ss t r o n g lyt h a th e d id n o tre a lly w a n t a s p e e d ytri a l .” ). I n Pal m er, t he Fi f t h C i r cui t hel d t hat because t he def endan t ”f i r stassert ed hi s r i ght t hi rt y m onths aft erhi s ar r est , w hi ch w as o n e m onth aft erhe f i r st r ec ei ved not i f i ca t i on of hi s i ndi ct m ent , and he com pl ai ned att hatt i m e o nl y of th e 2 2 -m o n th p re -i n d i c tm e n t d e l a y ,”h i s“ s i l e n c e d u ri n g th e e n ti re pr e- i ndi ct m entpe r i od w or k[ ed] ag ai ns thi m be ca us e i ts ugge st [ ed] t hatan y har dshi ps he suf f er ed w er e ei t herm i ni m al o rcaused by ot herf act or s. ” Pal m er, 537 F . 2d a t1288 . L ik e w is e , in t h is c a s e , A p p e lla n t d id n o ta s s e rth iss p e e d yt r ia l rig h tu n t il aft ert r i al ha d be gun. And w hen A ppe l l antdi d a ss erthi s r i ght , i tw as i n t he fo rm o f a m o ti o n to d i sm i ss . I n fac t, A p p e l l a n t f i l e d m u l ti p l e p ro s e m o ti o n s to di sm i ss dur i ng hi s pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on, despi t e havi ng a court - appo i nt ed19

att or ney . The t r i alco urtco ul d ha ve r ea so nab l y i nf er r ed t hatA ppe l l antw asnot i nt er est ed i n a speedy t r i al , butr at hert hathe w as i nt er est ed onl y i n a di sm i ssal o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im . W e c o n c lu d e , a s t h e t r ia l c o u rtm u s th a v e , t h a tt h is f ac t orw ei ghsag ai ns t A ppe l l ant ’ s cl ai m t hathi s sp ee dy t r i alr i ghtw asvi ol at ed.

4. Pr ej udi ce Beca us e “pr et r i aldel ay i s oft en bot h i nev i t abl e a nd w hol l y j us t i f i abl e, ” t he f ourt h Bar

ker fa ct orexam i nes w het herand t o w hatext entt he del ay has p rej u d i c e d th e d e fe n d a n t. Barker, 407 U. S. a t 532, 92 S. Ct . at21 93; D ogg e tt, 505 U . S. at 6 5 6 , 112 S . Ct . at2692 . W hen a cou rtan al yz est he p rej u d i c e to th e d e fen d a n t, i t m u s t d o s o in l i g h t of th e d e fen d a n t’ s i n tere sts t hatt he sp ee dy t r i alr i ghtw asde si gne d t o pr ot ec t : ( 1) t o pr eve ntoppr es si ve pr et r i al i nca r ce r at i on, ( 2) t o m i ni m i z e t he ac cus ed’ s an xi et y a nd c onc er n, an d (3 ) to l i m i t th e p o s s i b i l i tyth a t th e a c c u s e d ’sd e fe n s e w i l l b e i m p a i re d . S ee D rag o o v. S tate , 96 S. W . 3d 308, 315 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2003 ) ( ci t i ng Barker, 40 7 U . S . at53 2, 92 S. C t . at2 19 3) . O ft hese i nt er est s, t he t hi r d i s t he m ost i m p ort antbecause t he i nabi l i t y ofa def endan tt o adequ at el y pr epar e hi s case s k e w s th e fa i rn e s s o f th e e n ti re s y s te m . Barker, 4 07 U . S . at53 2, 92 S. C t . at 2 1 9 3 ; D ogg e tt, 5 0 5 U .S . a t 6 5 4 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 2 6 9 2 ; D rago o , 96 S. W . 3d at 315.20

A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h isf a c t o rs h o u ld w e ig h in f a v o ro ff in d in g t h a th is speedy t r i al r i ght w as vi ol at ed because hi s pret r i al i ncar cer at i on w as oppr essi ve, he su f f er ed “a nxi et y a nd c onc er n”ab outt he pr epa r at i on ofhi s def ens e, an d he w a s u n a b le t o lo c a t e a w it n e s sin p r e p a r in g f o rh isd e f e n s e d u e t o h is i ncar cer at i on. W e di sagr ee. A ppel l ant ’ s i ncar cer at i on m ay have been oppr essi ve i f he had no tr ecei ved cr edi ton h i s se nt enc e f ort i m e s erved ori fheha d ul t i m at el y be en f ound in n o c e n to ft h e c h a r g e s , b u tA p p e lla n tre c e iv e d c r e d ito n h iss e n t e n c e f o rh is p re -tri a l i n c a rc e ra ti o n . Se eS tarks v. S tate , 266 S . W . 3d 605, 612 ( Tex. A p p .— E l P a so 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t. ) (ho l d i n g tha t ap p e ll a n t’ s tw e n ty-fi v e -m o n th p r e t r ia l in c a r c e r a t io n w a sn o to p p r e s s iv e w h e n a p p e lla n tre c e iv e d c r e d ito n h is s e n te n c e fo r ti m e s e rv e d a n d a p p e l l a n t u l ti m a te l yp l e a d e d g u i l tyto c h a rg e s ); see al so United S tates v. Casas , 425 F. 3d 23, 34–3 5 ( 1stCi r . 2005 ) ( hol di ng def end ant s’ al l ega t i onsofan xi et y a nd con ce r n dur i ng f ort y- onem ont h pe r i od ofp r et r i al i ncar cer at i on i nsuf f i ci entt o show vi ol at i on of speedy t r i al r i ght w hen ti m e s e rv e d w a sc re d i te d a g a i n s t s e n te n c e sth e yre c e i v e d u p o n c o n v i c ti o n ); Gray v. Ki

ng , 7 2 4F .2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4( 5 th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) (ho l d i n g tha t t e n -m o n th i ncar cer at i on w as notoppr essi ve pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on w hen defendantr e c ei ved c re d i t fo r p re tri a l i n c a rc e ra ti o n ).21

A s t o A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m ofhavi ng suf f er ed f r om anxi et y, any cr i m i nal c h a rge i s ce rt a i n to b ri n g a l e v e l o f an x i e ty w i th i t; h o w e v e r, A p p e l l a n t f a i l e d to i nt r oduc e a ny e vi den cet hatt he anx i et y hes uf f er ed ei t herw asab nor m al or c a u s e d h i sc a s e p rej u d i c e . S ee G oodrum v. Q uarter m an , 547 F. 3d 249, 263 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (“[G ]en e ral i ze d ex p res sion s of an x i e ty an d c o n c e rn a m o u n t t o l i ttle m o re th a n a n o m i n a l s h o w i n g o f p rej u d i c e .” ). F i n a l l y , a lth o u g h A p p e l l a n t m e n ti o n s a w i tn e ss h e w a s u n a b l e to l o c a te duet o hi s i nca r ce r at i on, A ppe l l antdi d nott es t i f y ho w t hatw i t nes s’ s t es t i m ony w o u l d b e rel e v a n t t o h i s c a se . A p p e l l a n t ad m i tted tha t t h e w i tn e ss w a s n o t a w i t nes s t o t he eve nt s and sai d onl y t hatt he w i t nes s had “ i nf or m at i on”ab out anotherw i t ness’ s st at em ent , b utd i d not el abor at e o n w hatthe i nf or m at i on w as orw hatspeci f i c st at em enthe w as r ef er r i ng to. W hen asked w het herhe had att em pt ed t o l oca t e t hi s al l ege d m i ss i ng w i t nes s, A ppe l l ant ul t i m at el y r epl i ed,

“ [I] t’sh a rd to re c a l l . I t’sb e e n a l o n g ti m e i n th e c a g e .” T h e tria l c o u rt w a se n ti tl e d to d i s b e l i e v e a l l o r p a rt o f A p p e l l a n t’s t esti m on y con ce r ni ng hi s att em pts t o l oc ate t hi s w i t ne s s . Se eCa n tu , 253 S .W .3 d a t2 8 1 . T h e t r ia l c o u rtw a sa ls o e n t it le d t o d r a w t h e re a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e th a t A p p e l l a n t’s l a c k o f s p e c i fi c i ty c o n c e rn i n g th i sa l l e g e d w i tn e s s ’s re l e v a n c e to A p p e l l a n t’sd e fe n s e u n d e rm i n e d th e i m p o rta n c e o f th e w i tn e s s ’s t est i m ony. The t r i al courtcoul d have r easonabl y concl uded t hatA ppel l anthad22

f ai l ed t o d e m onst r at e t hatany w i t nesses f or got any detai l s orot her w i se bec am e u nav ai l abl e a s a r es ul toft he del ay or t hat A ppe l l anthi m se l fco ul d not re c a l l th e e v e n ts b e c a u s e o f th e l e n g th o f th e d e l a y . S ee Star ks , 266 S. W . 3d at61 3. I n short , A ppel l anthas notdem onst r at ed a n yp e rsonal ordef ense pr ej udi ce . The f ourt h f ac t or f avo r s a f i ndi ng t hatA ppe l l ant ’ s r i ghtt o a s pee dy t r i al w asnotvi ol at ed.

5 . B a l a n c i n g th eF a c to rs H avi ng add r essed t he Barker fa c to rs , w e m u s t n o w b a la n c e th e m . In b a l a n c i n g the se fac to rs, w e f in d t h e c a se o f Me yer v. S tatef r om oursi st er c o u rt i n W a c o i n s tru c ti v e . S e eMe yer v. S tate , 27 S. W . 3d 64 4, 651 ( Tex. A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ), abroga ted on other groundsby Robi

ns on v. S ta te, 24 0 S. W . 3d 91 9, 92 2 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 07 ) . M eyerw as i ncar cer at ed dur i ng a t w ent y- t hr eem ont h del ay bet w ee n hi s ar r es tand t r i al , t he St at e g ave n o v a lid re a s o n f o rt h e d e la y , a n d M e y e rt im e lya n d c o n s is t e n t lya s s e rt e d h is ri g h t to a s p e e d ytri a l . Id. at64 9– 51 . The cou rthel d t hatal t hou gh M eyerhad su f f er ed so m e o ppr es si ve pr et r i ali nca r ce r at i on a nd un duean xi et y, hedi d not m ak e e ven a pr i m a f ac i e sho w i ng t hathi s def ens e h ad bee n i m pai r ed by t he passage oft i m e r esul t i ng f r om t he del ay i n hi s t r i al . Bal anci ng t he Barker7 ... I t i t i s w o rt h n o ti n g tha t M e y e r so u g h t a h a b e a s c l a i m i n fed e ral co u rt .

Me yer v. D retke , 2 9 1 F . S u p p .2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 2 (N .D . T e x2 0 0 3 ), a ff’d 104 Fed. A p p x . 9 5 6 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ), cert. denied 54 4 U . S . 92 3 (2 0 0 5) . The f eder al di st r i ctco urtf ort he N ort her n Di st r i ctofTexa s den i ed hab ea s r el i ef , hol di ng t hatt he W a c o c o u rtofappeal s’ s hol di ng w as nei t her“cont r ary t o, [ nor ] an unr ea so nab l e a ppl i ca t i on of , cl ea r l y e st abl i sh ed f ede r all a w asde t er m i ned by t he S upr em e C ourt . ” Id. a t479. 23 f a c t o r s , t h e W a c o c o u rto fa p p e a lsc o n c lu d e d t h a tM e y e rw a sn o td e n ie d h is s p e e d ytri a l ri g h t. Id . a t651. 7 I n t hi s ca se , l i kei n Meyer, A ppe l l antw asi nca r ce r at ed dur i ng a t w ent yt h r e e m o n t h d e la yb e t w e e n h is a r r e s ta n d t r ia l a n d t h e S t a t e h a sg iv e n n o v a lid r ea so n f ort he del ay. Al so , l i kei n Meyer, Ap p e l l a n th a sn o te v e n ma d e a p r i ma f ac i e sho w i ng t hathi s def ens e w asi m pai r ed by t he pas sa ge oft i m e r es ul t i ng f r om t he del ay i n hi s t r i al . Butunl i kei n Meyer, A pp el l anti n t hi s ca sedi d not t i m el y and con si st ent l y asserth i s r i ght t o a speedy t r i al , r at herhe onl y assert ed t h e r i g h ta f t e r t r i a l h a d b e g u n a n d t h e n i n t h e f o r m o f a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . He h a d also p rev i o u sly fi l e d h i s o w n m o ti o n s t o d i sm i ss d e sp i te h a v i n g co u rt app oi nt ed coun se l

— i ndi ca t i ng t hathe w asnoti nt er es t ed i n a sp ee dy t r i al , but r a t h e rin t e r e s t e d in n o th a v in g a t r ia l a ta ll. I n c on c l us i on , w e i gh i ng i n f a vo ro ff i nd i ng t ha tApp e l l a nt ’ ss pe e dyt r i al r i ght w as vi ol at ed ar e t he f act s t hatt her e w as a t w e n ty-thr ee m onth del ay bet w ee n hi s ar r es tan d t r i alan d t he St at e h asgi ven no v al i d r ea so n f ort he24

d e la y . W e ig h in g a g a in s tf in d in g a v io la t io n o f A p p e lla n t ’s s p e e d y t r ia l rig h tis t he f ac tt hathef ai l ed t o a ss erthi s r i ghtunt i l m or e t han t w ent y- t hr eem ont hs a fter his arres t, an d the n , h e as se rt e d tha t r i g h t i n the fo rm o f a m o ti o n to di sm i ss and aft erhi s t r i al had begu n. Furt her , t her e i s a l ack ofany subst ant i al per sonal ordef ense pr ej udi ce r esul t i ng f r om th e d e l ay and A ppel l antr ecei ved cr edi t on hi s sent ence f or t i m e served. W e hol d t hat t he w ei g h t of th e se fa c to rs , b a l a n c e d t o g e th e r, s u p p o rtst h e t ri a l ju d g e ’sru l i n g t o d e n yA p p e l l a n t’s m o t io n t o d is m is sa n d t h a tt h e r e w a sn o v io la t io n o fh isrig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l. W e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s t w o poi nt s. IV . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’stw o p o i n ts , w e a ffir m t h e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

DI XON W . HOL M AN J U S T I C E PA N EL: G A R D N ER and W A LK ER , JJ. ; D I X O N W . H O LM A N , J. ( S eni orJust i ce, R e ti re d , S i ttin g b yA s s i g n m e n t). W A LKER, J. f i l ed a c onc ur r i ng op i ni on. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 5, 20091 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... Bar ker v. W

i ngo , 4 0 7 U .S . 5 1 4 , 5 3 0 , 9 2 S . C t. 2 1 8 2 , 2 1 9 2 (1 9 7 2 ). 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 00 4- CR NO. 2 - 08 - 00 5- CR J OHN AL F R E D C HR I S T M AS AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 9 7TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F M O NTA GU E CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### CONCURRI NG M E MORAND UM OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I res p e c tful l yco n c u r w i th th e m aj o ri ty’s d i sp o sit i o n o f th i s a p p e a l . I w ri te se par at el y t o e xpr ess s om e di sa gr ee m entw i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s ana l ys i s oft he se con d t w o Barker2 speedy t r i al f act or s. U l t i m at el y, how ever , exi st i ng case l aw m and at est he r es ul tr ea che d byt he m aj or i t y.2

The f ac t s oft he ca sear e c or r ec t l y an d adequ at el y s etf ort h byt he m aj or i t y, exceptt he m ost l y addi t i onal f act s t hatar e setfo rt h b el ow as pert i nent. A s t he m aj or i t y poi nt s out , t he S t at e’ s att or ney cand i dl y conced ed dur i ng or alar gum entt hatt he f i r stan d s ec ond Barker f ac t or s— t he l eng t h oft he d e l a ya n d th e re a s o n s fo r th e d e l a y — w e i g h i n fa v o r o f A p p e l l a n t. S ee Bar ker, 407 U. S. a t530, 92 S . Ct . a t2192 . Regar di ng t he t hi r d Barker fact or — t he ext entto w hi ch A ppel l antassert ed hi s r i ght t o a speedy t r i al

— I cannot agr ee w i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s det er m i nat i on t hat A ppe l l antdi d notas se rthi s sp ee dy t r i alr i ghtunt i l aft ertr i alha d be gun. M aj o ri ty O p . a t 1 9 . A re v i e w o f th e re c o rd s h o w s th a t A p p e l l a n t re p e a t e d ly at t e m p t e d t o c a u s e h i s c a s e t o c o m e t o a h e a d

— w h e t h e r b y d i s m i ss al or d i s p o s i ti o n a t tri a l . S e ei d. A ppel l antsati n j ai l for six m o nt hs bef or e an i n d i c t me n tw a sr e t u r n e d a g a i n s th i m o ra n a t t o r n e ywa sa p p o i n t e d f o rh i m. On t he day t hatt he t r i al courtappoi nt ed hi s att or ney, t he courtsai d i tw oul d “see abou t a p p o i n ti ng an at t or ney f oryou i fyou w antt o have on e, ” t o w hi ch A ppe l l a nt r e pl i e d, “ W e l l , I ’ ve go t t o do s om e t hi ng . I c a n’ t e ve n ge tcopi es m ade . I ha ve no a cc es s t o the l aw l i br ary oran yt hi ng. . . . So I ’ m ki nd of cr i ppl ed her e. ” Lat er i n t he sam e hear i ng, A ppel l ant noted t ha t an ap p o i nt ed a tto rn e y“ w o u l d b e b e tte r th a n I a m d o i n g .”3 ... Th e sam e day t hathe f i l ed hi s m ot i on t o di sm i ss, A ppel l antal so f i l ed

a m o t i o n re q u e s ti n g th a t th e c o u rt i n s tru c t th e M o n ta g u e C o u n tyS h e ri ff’s D epart m ent and j ai l st af f t o pr ovi de hi m access t o confi denti al docum ent s, l egal t a b le t s , in kp e n s , a n d t h e M o n t a g u e C o u n t yla w lib r a ry . A p p e lla n t e x p la in e d in hi s m ot i on t hatt he j ai l ad m i ni st r at or“r epeat edl y deni ed m e access t o t he l aw l i b r a ry ” a n d t o l d Ap p e l l a n t “ t h a t c o p i e s a n d a c c e s s t o t h e l a w l i b r ar y a r e n ot r equi r em ent s oft he st at e j ai l com m i ssi on. ” I n hi s m ot i on, A ppel l antnot ed t hat h i s c o u rt-a p p o i n te d a tto rn e yw a sa c ti n g a sc o -c o u n s e l to A p p e l l a n t. T h e re c o rd i s si l entr ega r di ng w het hert he cou rt app r ove d oft hi s hybr i d r epr es ent at i on, but both ofA ppel l ant ’ s han dw r i t t en m ot i ons t o di sm i ss w er e r el i ed upo n by cou nsel a t h e a ri n g so n th e s e m o ti o n sa n d th e tri a l c o u rt ru l e d o n th e s e m o ti o n s . S ee Ro b i n so nv. S tate , 24 0 S. W . 3d 91 9, 92 3 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 07 ) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al co urti s f r eet o di sr ega r d pr o s e m ot i onsofa def end antr epr es ent ed by cou ns el , butonc e a co urtch oos est o r ul e on such m ot i ons , t hatt hos e d ec i si ons a re re v i e w a b l e ); Web bv. S tate , 533 S. W . 2d 780, 784 ( Te x. C r i m . App . 1976 ) (h o ld in g t h a ta lt h o u g h a c r im in a l d e f e n d a n td o e sn o th a v e t h e rig h tt o h y b r id re p re s e n ta ti o n , a p a ti e n t tri a l j u d g e m a yp e rm i t i t). 3 The r ec or d s how s t hatev en aft eran att or neyw asap poi nt ed, A ppe l l ant w as t he one, r at her t han hi s att or ney, t o f i l e a m ot i on t o di sm i ss, 3cl ai m i ng t hat t he S t at e f ai l ed t o r et ur n an i ndi ct m ent w i t hi n 18 0 d ays. S ee T e x . C o d e C r i m. Pr oc. A nn. art . 32 . 01 ( V er non 20 06 ) ( pr ovi di ng f ordi sm i ssalofchar ges w hen def end antha s bee n de t ai ned i n c us t ody w i t houtpr es ent m entofan i ndi ct m ent o n o rb e f o r e t h e la t e ro fe it h e r t h e la s t d a y o f t h e n e x t t e r m o f c o u rtw h ic h is h e l d afte r de fen d a n t’ s c o m m i tm e n t or o n o r be fo re th e 1 8 0 th d a yafte r t h e d a te ofc om m i t m ent ) . Al t hough A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ssf ai l ed t o us e t he m agi c w or dsr equ es t i ng a spee dy t r i al , i ti s cl ea rt hatA ppe l l antw asatt em pt i ng t o do som et hi ng t o f or ce hi s case out ofi t s st al em at e.4

A ppel l ant ’ s ef f ort s t o m ove hi s case of fd ead cent erar e f urt herevi denced b ythe fac t t h a t t w o m o n th s a fter t h e h e a ri n g o n A p p e ll a n t’ s fi rst m o ti o n to di sm i ss , hef i l ed se ver alha ndw r i t t en m o t i o n sf o rd i s c o v e ry — m o t i o n satt em pt i ng t o m ovet he ca sef or w ar d. And on t he day o ftr i al , A ppel l antf i l ed a s ec ond ha nd w r i t t en m ot i on t o di sm i ss , t hi s t i m e al l egi ng a den i al of hi s r i ght t o a speedy t r i al . W hen hi s att or ney pr esent ed t he m ot i on t o t he court , he expl ai ned t hatA ppe l l antbr oughti tw i t h hi m t o courtt hatday and t hatt he St at e h ad not had a chance to r evi ew i t . A ppel l ant expl ai ned, “I j ustgot– I have no access – unt i l I gott hatco py o ft he con st i t ut i on a nd s t uf f , I di dn’ t kno w w hatt o put i n i t.” A ppe l l antdoe s notbe art he bur den t o br i ng hi m se l ft o t r i al ; tha ti s t he S t a t e ’s d u ty . S e eCa n tuv. S tate , 253 S . W . 3d 273, 282 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 8) ( ci t i ng Barker, 407 U . S. at 527 –28 , 92 S. Ct . at2190 –91 ) . Al t hough A p p e lla n td o e sh a v e t h e re s p o n s ib ilit yt o a s s e rth isrig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l in s o m e f a s h io n , t h e r ig h tt o a s p e e d yt r ia l isc o n s t it u t io n a llyg u a r a n t e e d n o to n ly to th e v i g i l a n t a n d th e k n o w l e d g e a b l e . Id. ; O ran d v. S tate , 254 S. W . 3d 560, 568 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 8, pet . r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng Barker, 407 U. S. a t527 n. 27 , 9 2 S . C t . at 21 90 n. 27 ) . The r ecor d dem onst r at es t hatA ppel l antw as not si m pl y acqui esci ng t o t he del ay w hi l e he w a s j a i l e d f ort w ent y- t hr ee m o n th s; A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t a c c e ss to th e law li b rarya n d to i tem s n e c e ss a ry to5

p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e , a n d u lt im a t e lya s s e rt e d , a lb e itin a m o t i o n t o d is m is s , h is ri g h t to a s p e e d yt ri a l . S ee Bar ker, 407 U . S. at 527 , 92 S. Ct . at2190 ( not i ng t hati ti s i m pos si bl e t o pi npoi nt a p r ec i set i m e i n t he pr oce ssw hen t he def end antm us tas se rthi s r i ghtt o a sp ee dy t r i al ) . Thes e ef f ort s by Appel l ant m ak e ana l ys i s oft he t hi r d Barker f ac t ora m uch cl os erca l l t han r ec ogni z ed by t he m aj or i t y. Nevert hel es s, ex i st i ng cas e l aw s i m pl y pr ec l ude s a d et er m i nat i on th a t th i s f a c to r w e i g h sin A p p e l l a n t’sfa v o r. See, e. g. , i d. a t517– 19, 533– 35, 92 S. C t . at21 85 –8 7, 21 93 –9 4 ( hol di ng t hatf i l i ng of m ot i on t o di sm i ss i ndi ct m enti n r es pon set o “ ano t herm ot i on f orco nt i nua nce ” by g ove r nm ent a fte r o v e r th re e -y e a r d e l a yw a sn o t a s s e rti o n o f s p e e d ytri a l ri g h t); United S tates v. Pal

m er, 53 7 F. 2d 12 87 , 12 88 ( 5th C i r. 1 97 6) ( hol di ng t hat def endan t ’ s si l ence dur i ng tw ent y- t w o m onth pr e- i ndi ct m entper i od w ei ghed a g a i n st h i m w h e n h e a ss e rt e d h i s ri g h t t h i rt ym o n th s a fter arres t an d o n e m o n th a fte r n o ti fi e d o f h i si n d i c tm e n t); Ca n tu , 25 3 S. W . 3d at27 7, 28 6 ( noti ng t hat appel l ant ’ s t ar di ness i n assert i ng hi s r i ght w ei ghed agai nsth i m w hen he f i l ed m ot i on t o di sm i ss l ess t han t w o m onths aft erh e w as charged butoversi xt een m on t hs aft er hi s arr est); D rag o o v. S tate , 9 6 S . W . 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 2003 ) ( hol di ng t hatde f end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o a ss erts pee dy-t r i alvi ol at i on f or t hr eean d a ha l fye ar s, unt i l j us tbe f or e t r i albe gan , al t hough r epr es ent ed by c o u n s e l a n d a b s e n t a n ya s s e rti o n th a t c o u n s e l w a si n e ffe c ti v e , c a u s e d th i rd6

Barker fa c to r to w e i g h a g a i n s t h im ); Phi l l i p s v. S tate , 650 S. W . 2d 396, 401 ( Tex . Cr i m . App . 1983 ) ( “ [ A] d e f e nd a nt ’ sm ot i va t i on i n a s k i ng f ord i sm i ssal r at hert han a pr om ptt r i ali s cl ea r l y r el eva nt , and m ay so m et i m esatt enu at e t he s tre n g th o f h i sc l a i m .” ); Pa rkerso n v. S tate , 942 S . W . 2d 789, 791 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t .) (h o ld in g t h a t a p p e lla n t ’s r e q u e s tf o rd is m is s a l, ra th e r th a n s p e e d ytri a l , w e a k e n e d h i ss p e e d y -tri a l c l a i m ). Regar di ng t he f ourt h Barker f act or , “pr ej udi ce, ” A ppel l antsuf f er ed pr e t r i al i nca r ce r at i on i n a n unc om pl i ca t ed ca sef ort w ent y- t hr eem ont hs ; s i x m ont hs pas se d be f or e Appel l antw asi ndi ct ed and be f or e c ouns elw asap poi nt ed f or h i m . Se eBa r

ker, 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 3 1

– 3 2 , 9 2 S . C t. at 2 1 9 2

– 9 3 . T h e m aj o ri ty sum m ar i l y concl udes t hatt hi s pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on w as notoppr essi ve because A p p e lla n tre c e iv e d c r e d itf o rt im e s e rv e d . M aj. O p . a t2 0 . R e c e iv in g c r e d it re tro a c ti v e l yfo r ti m e s e rv e d , h o w e v e r, c a n n o tc o m p l e te l yu n d o o r c u re o p p re s s i v e p re tri a l i n c a rc e ra ti o n . S ee State v. Munoz , 991 S . W . 2d 818, 828 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( r e c o g n iz in g t h a t“ [w ]h a tisd is p o s it iv e o f‘t h is [ opp r essi ve pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on] consi der at i on’ i s t ha t[ A ppel l ant ] w as i n c a rc e ra te d d u ri n g th e e n ti re [tw e n ty -th re e ]-m o n th d e l a y ” ); see al so Bar ker, 40 7 U . S . at53 2– 33 , 92 S. C t . at21 93 ( “The ti m e spenti n j ai l a w a i t i ng t r i al h a s a d e t r im e n t a l i m p a c to n t h e in d iv id u a l. Ito ft e n m e a n slo s so fa jo b ; it di sr upt s f am i l y l i f e; an d i ten f or ce s i dl ene ss. M os tj ai l s of f erl i t t l e o rno7

r ecr eat i onal orr ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr am s. The t i m e spenti n j ai l i s si m pl y dead ti m e . M o re o v e r, if a d e fen d a n t i s l o c k e d u p , h e i s h i n d e red i n h i s a b i l i ty to g a th e r e v i d e n c e , c o n ta c t w i tn e s s e s , o r o th e rw i s e p re p a re h i sd e fe n s e .” ). T h e p rej u d i c e t o A p p e l l a n t i sa l s o s o m e w h a t s e l f-e v i d e n t fro m th e n a tu re o ft h e c h a r g e sa g a in s th im ; in d iv id u a lse n g a g e d in a n d w it n e s s e st o d o m e s t ic di sput es escal at i ng t o assaul t s som et i m es l i ve m or e t r ansi ent l i f est yl es. A ft er t w e n t y -t h r e e m o n t h so f p r e t r ia l in c a r c e r a t io n , A p p e lla n t t e s t if ie d t h a t“ p e o p le m ove . You ca n’ tge tah ol d [ si c] of any body . A ft er t w o yea r s, you don’ tkn ow t he add r es se s, phon e n um ber s. ” A pp el l antal so t es t i f i ed t hathew oul d ha ve c a lle d a M r . R h o d e st o t e s t if yt o “ in f o r m a t io n t h a tw a s n ’tin t h e s t a t e m e n t ” if he knew how t o contacthi m . U l t i m at el y, A ppel l antcal l ed onl y t w o w i t nesses a t t ri a l

— h i m se l f an d h i s gir l fr i e n d a t th e ti m e o f th e i n c i d e n t. U n d e r t h e fou rt h Barker f a c t o r , a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o fp r ej u d i c e i sn o tn e c e s s a rya n d t he p re s u m p ti o n o f p rej u d i c e g ro w sa n d i n te n s ifi e so v e r ti m e . See Orand, 254 S. W . 3 d at569 ( not i ng t hat“ t i m e’ s er os i on ofex cul pat ory e vi den cean d te s ti m o n yc a n ra re l yb e s h o w n ” ). Exi s t i ng c a s e l a w , ho w e ve r , m a nd a t e s t ha t a ft e r a t w o- ye a rdel ay A p p e l l a n t m u s t e s ta b l i s h m o re t h a n s p e c u l a ti v e p rej u d i c e t o h i sd e fe n s e . S ee, e. g. , Ca n tu , 25 3 S . W . 3d at 27 7 ( noti ng i n i t s pr ej udi ce anal ysi s t hat“t her e w as n o e v i d e n c e th a t a p p e l l a n t l o s t h i sj o b o r h a d h is w o r ks c h e d u l e d i s ru p te d ” );8

Sh a wv. S tate , 117 S . W . 3d 883 , 8 9 0 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2003 ) ( “[ A ] ppe l l ant of f er ed no evi dence t o t he t r i al courtt hatt he del ay had caused hi m any unu sual a n x ie t yo rc o n c e r n , i. e ., a n ya n x ie t yo rc o n c e r n b e y o n d t h e le v e l n o r m a lly a s s o c i a te d w i th b e i n g c h a rg e d w i th [th e ] c ri m e .” ); Burge tt v. S tate , No. 02- 05- 00377

- CR, 2006 W L 35254 34, a t *4 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h Apr . 25, 2007 , pet . r e f ’ d ) ( m e m . o p . , n o td e s i g n a t e d f o rp u b l i c a t i o n ) ( f i n d i n g n o c o n n e c t i on bet w ee n a ppe l l ant ’ s l ac k o fac ce sst o t he l aw l i br ary w i t h hi s cl ai m of p rej u d i c e ); State v. W ray , No. 05- 01- 01 799- CR, 2002 W L1763 567, a t*4 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asJul y 31, 200 2, pe t . di sm ’ d) ( notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) (h o l d i n g d e l a yo ft w o a n d o n e -h a l f y e a rsw a sn o t p re s u m p ti v e l yp rej u d i c i a l ); Me yer v. S tate , 27 S. W . 3d 644, 650 ( Tex. A pp. — W ac o 2 0 00, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hatde f end ant ’ s cl ai m ofpr ej udi ceba se d on m i ss i ng w i t nes se s di d not su pportpr ej udi cef i ndi ng beca us e def end ant , w ho w asi nca r ce r at ed dur i ng t he ent i r e t w ent y- t hr eem ont h de l ay , f ai l ed t o a ddr es s bot h m at er i al i t y a nd re l e v a n c e o f th e m i s s i n g w i tn e s s e sa n d h i se ffo rtsto fi n d th e m ), abroga ted on o th er gro un ds b yRo b i n so nv. S tate , 240 S . W . 3d 919, 9 2 2 (T ex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 7) . Her e Appel l antdi d notdo s o. F o r th e re a s o n ss ta te d a b o v e , I re s p e c tfu l l yc o n c u r i n th e m aj o ri ty ’s opi ni on. SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 5, 2009