Rel: May 3, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

_________________________

CR-2023-0867

_________________________

State of Alabama 

v. 

Joshua Lamont MacGrady

Appeal from Jefferson District Court

(DC-2022-1555)

On Return to Remand

WINDOM, Presiding Judge.
CR-2023-0867

2

The State of Alabama appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court's order 

granting Joshua Lamont MacGrady's motion to dismiss the case against 

him.1

Facts and Procedural History

On December 15, 2021, MacGrady's wife rented a moving truck 

from a rental company in Palm Beach County, Florida. The truck was 

not returned as scheduled, and the rental company reported the truck as 

stolen on January 28, 2022. Law enforcement initiated a traffic stop of 

the truck in Jefferson County on February 21, 2022. MacGrady was 

1 Judge Shanta Craig Owens, a Jefferson Circuit Court Judge, 

signed the orders in this case as a "District Judge." Further, MacGrady's 

motion and amended motion purported to have been filed in the circuit 

court, yet the trial court's digital stamp indicated that the motions had 

been filed in the district court.

Because the case had been bound over to the grand jury before the 

motion to dismiss had been granted, the district court no longer had 

jurisdiction of the case. See State v. Brown, 259 So. 3d 655, 659 (Ala. 

2018) ("The district court does not retain authority over a case once the 

case has been bound over to the grand jury."). Accordingly, this Court 

remanded the case on April 15, 2024, for Judge Owens to clarify whether

she was sitting as a circuit judge or acting as a district judge at the time 

she granted MacGrady's motion to dismiss.

On April 16, 2024, Judge Owens issued an order stating that she 

was sitting as a circuit judge when she granted MacGrady's motion to 

dismiss. Presumably, the case still carries a district court case number 

because the case was dismissed before MacGrady was indicted.
CR-2023-0867

3

driving the truck at the time and was arrested for first-degree receiving 

stolen property, see §13A-8-17, Ala. Code 1975.

MacGrady was released on bond on February 24, 2022. On March 

28, 2022, MacGrady entered a written demand for a speedy trial. 

MacGrady waived his preliminary hearing on May 10, 2022, and the case 

was bound over to the grand jury.

On May 16, 2023, MacGrady filed a motion to dismiss the pending 

charge because, he argued, his right to a speedy trial had been violated, 

and he filed an amended motion on October 17, 2023, that included 

several images of what appeared to be emails from a potential employer. 

(C. 36-42, 20-29.) The circuit court held a hearing on MacGrady's 

amended motion to dismiss on October 19, 2023. In a written order 

issued on November 9, 2023, the circuit court granted MacGrady's motion 

to dismiss. (C. 12.) The State timely appealed the circuit court's

judgment on November 15, 2023. See Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P.

Analysis

The State asserts on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting 

MacGrady's motion to dismiss because, it argues, MacGrady failed to 

prove that he was prejudiced by the delay in bringing him to trial. "The 
CR-2023-0867

4

facts before us are undisputed. The only question to be decided is a 

question of law, and our review is therefore de novo." Ex parte Heard, 

999 So. 2d 978, 980 (Ala. 2003) (citing Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 

1059 (Ala. 2003)).

In Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259 (Ala. 2005), the Alabama 

Supreme Court explained:

"An accused's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by 

Art. I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution, 1901. As noted, an 

evaluation of an accused's speedy-trial claim requires us to 

balance the four factors the United States Supreme Court set 

forth in Barker [v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)]: '[l]ength of 

delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of 

[his or her] right, and prejudice to the defendant.' 407 U.S. at 

530, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (footnote omitted). See also Ex parte 

Carrell, 565 So. 2d [104,] 105 [(Ala. 1990)]. 'A single factor is 

not necessarily determinative, because this is a "balancing 

test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the 

defense are weighed."' Ex parte Clopton, 656 So. 2d [1243] at 

1245 [(Ala. 1995)] (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. 

2182).”

928 So. 2d at 263.

Length of Delay

The first factor to evaluate is the length of the delay. "In Alabama, 

'[t]he length of delay is measured from the date of the indictment or the 

date of the issuance of an arrest warrant – whichever is earlier.'" Ex 
CR-2023-0867

5

parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 264 (quoting Roberson v. State, 864 So. 2d 

379, 394 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)). MacGrady was arrested for first-degree 

receiving stolen property on February 21, 2022, and the circuit court held 

a hearing on his motion to dismiss on October 19, 2023.2 The delay in 

this case was approximately 20 months.

In prior cases, this Court has held similar delays to be 

presumptively prejudicial. See State v. Pylant, 214 So. 3d 392, 395 (Ala. 

Crim. App. 2016), and the cases cited therein.

"A finding that the length of delay is presumptively 

prejudicial 'triggers' an examination of the remaining three 

Barker factors. 505 U.S. at 652 n.1, 112 S. Ct. 2686 ('[A]s the 

term is used in this threshold context, "presumptive 

prejudice" does not necessarily indicate a statistical 

probability of prejudice; it simply marks the point at which 

courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the 

Barker enquiry.'). See also Roberson v. State, 864 So. 2d 379, 

394 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 263-64. Because the length of delay in 

MacGrady's case was presumptively prejudicial, this Court will examine 

the remaining Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), factors.

2 It does not appear from the record that MacGrady has been 

indicted.
CR-2023-0867

6

Reasons for the Delay

Returning to Ex parte Walker:

"The State has the burden of justifying the delay. See

Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Steeley v. City of Gadsden, 533 So. 

2d 671, 680 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). Barker recognizes three 

categories of reasons for delay: (1) deliberate delay, (2) 

negligent delay, and (3) justified delay. 407 U.S. at 531. 

Courts assign different weight to different reasons for delay. 

Deliberate delay is 'weighted heavily' against the State. 407 

U.S. at 531. Deliberate delay includes an 'attempt to delay 

the trial in order to hamper the defense' or '"to gain some 

tactical advantage over (defendants) or to harass them."' 407 

U.S. at 531 & n.32 (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 

307, 325, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1971)). Negligent 

delay is weighted less heavily against the State than is 

deliberate delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Ex parte Carrell, 

565 So. 2d [104,] 108 [(Ala. 1990)]. Justified delay – which 

includes such occurrences as missing witnesses or delay for 

which the defendant is primarily responsible – is not weighted 

against the State. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Zumbado v. State, 

615 So. 2d 1223, 1234 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ('"Delays 

occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from 

the length of delay and are heavily counted against the 

defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker."')

(quoting McCallum v. State, 407 So. 2d 865, 868 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1981))."

928 So. 2d at 265.

There is no allegation in the record that the delay in bringing 

MacGrady to trial was deliberate. MacGrady conceded as much at the 

hearing but did ask that the circuit court find the delay to be negligent. 
CR-2023-0867

7

(R. 5.) The State pushed back on this point, arguing below that the delay 

was justified because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indeed, after recognizing that jury trials in Alabama were 

suspended by order of the Alabama Supreme Court from March 13, 2020, 

to September 14, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court 

held in Quinnie v. State, [Ms. CR-21-0374, Dec. 16, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___, 

___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2022), that the six months that had passed during 

the suspension of jury trials could not be held against the State. 

According to the State, grand juries in the Tenth Judicial Circuit were 

suspended even longer, until November 2020.

Yet, MacGrady's case was initiated with his arrest on February 21, 

2022, some 15 months after grand juries had resumed in the Tenth 

Judicial Circuit. In truth, the State's explanation for the delay was a preexisting backlog of cases that had been exacerbated by the COVID-19 

pandemic.3 The State asserted to the circuit court that, in attempting to 

whittle down the backlog of pending cases, it had prioritized holding 

trials for defendants who were incarcerated while awaiting trial and 

3 The circuit court agreed with the State that the "COVID-19 

pandemic created a backlog of cases for grand jury presentment." (C. 12.)
CR-2023-0867

8

defendants who were charged with violent crimes4 – neither of which 

applied to MacGrady.

In Quinnie, this Court held that only the six months that had 

passed during the suspension constituted justifiable delay. Quinnie, ___ 

So. 3d at ___. The remainder of the delay, both before and after the 

suspension of jury trials, was held to be negligent delay on the part of the 

State. Id. Further, this Court commonly views delays resulting from a 

congested court system as negligent "since the ultimate responsibility for 

such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the 

defendant." Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. This is especially true in the instant 

case because it involves a delay in presenting the case to the grand jury, 

an act over which the State has greater control relative to the setting of 

a case for trial. Nevertheless, this Court is sympathetic to the burdens 

placed on an already strained criminal-justice system by the COVID-19 

pandemic. Although the 20-month delay must weigh against the State, 

given the nature of the delay, this Court holds that it should not weigh 

heavily. See Draper v. State, 886 So. 2d 105, 115 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) 

("It appears that none of the 77-month delay was attributable to the 

4 See Rule 8.1, Ala. R. Crim. P.
CR-2023-0867

9

prosecutor; rather, the delay was the result of a large backlog of cases in 

Jefferson County and, therefore, should not weigh heavily against the 

State.").

Defendant's Assertion of his Right

"[C]ourts applying the Barker factors are to consider in the 

weighing process whether and when the accused asserts the right to a 

speedy trial, 407 U.S. at 528-29, and not every assertion of the right to a 

speedy trial is weighted equally." Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 265. 

For instance, "[r]epeated requests for a speedy trial weigh heavily in 

favor of an accused." Kelley v. State, 568 So. 2d 405, 410 (Ala. Crim. App. 

1990) (citing Wilson v. State, 407 So. 2d 584, 588 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)). 

MacGrady first asserted his right to a speedy trial the month 

following his arrest. MacGrady moved to dismiss the indictment for an 

alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial 13 months after his arrest 

and moved again to dismiss on the same ground 20 months after his 

arrest. The State concedes on appeal that MacGrady's assertions of his 

right to a speedy trial were timely and that this factor weighs in 

MacGrady's favor. This Court agrees.
CR-2023-0867

10

Prejudice to the Defendant

The dispute between the parties on appeal lies with the final factor 

– prejudice to MacGrady. The State asserts in its brief that MacGrady 

failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to warrant the dismissal of his 

charge. MacGrady, on the other hand, asserts that, because the other 

three factors weigh in his favor, he is entitled to presumed prejudice. In 

the alternative, MacGrady asserts that he has suffered and that he did 

demonstrate prejudice. He points specifically to the attachments to his 

amended motion to dismiss, which were purportedly emails from Texas 

Pride Fuels, a diesel and lubricant supplier: "Mr. MacGrady had 

apparently secured a lucrative position working for Texas Pride Fuels, 

and even gone so far as to complete the orientation program. However, 

Mr. MacGrady was apparently either terminated or denied employment 

due to the then-pending felony allegation." (MacGrady's brief, at 8.)

This Court first will address MacGrady's assertion that he is 

entitled to a presumption of prejudice. MacGrady relies on Hayes v. 

State, 487 So. 2d 987 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986), in support of his argument 

that he did not bear the burden of making "a showing of actual prejudice 

to prevail on a speedy trial claim." (MacGrady's brief, at 7.) Quoting 
CR-2023-0867

11

Hayes, MacGrady asserts in his brief that "'[the] prosecution should not 

be permitted to engage in inexcusable misconduct on the hope that the 

defendant will not be able to make out a case of prejudice.' [Hayes] at 

995-996." (MacGrady's brief, at 7.)

This Court's holding in Hayes, however, simply does not apply to 

the facts of this case. Hayes, as the quotation suggests, dealt with a delay 

that was found to be "deliberate and inexcusable, thus warranting heavy 

weight against the State." Hayes, 487 So. 2d at 992-93. As this Court 

has already held, and as MacGrady conceded at the hearing below, the 

delay here was, at most, negligent on the part of the State. The holding 

of the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Walker addresses whether 

prejudice may be presumed due to negligent delay on the part of the 

State:

"'[T]o warrant granting relief, negligence unaccompanied by 

particularized trial prejudice must have lasted longer than 

negligence demonstrably causing such prejudice.' Doggett v. 

United States, 505 U.S. [647,] 657 [(1992)], 112 S. Ct. 2686. 

The Court concluded that 'the Government's egregious 

persistence in failing [for 8 1/2 years] to prosecute Doggett 

[was] clearly sufficient' to entitle the accused to relief. 505 

U.S. at 657, 112 S. Ct. 2686. The Doggett Court did not, 

however, establish a bright-line rule for the length of delay 

caused by governmental negligence that will warrant a 

finding of presumed prejudice under the fourth Barker factor. 

Even so, when an accused alleges solely that [his] trial was 
CR-2023-0867

12

delayed because of governmental negligence – as is the case 

here – lower federal courts applying Doggett generally do not 

presume prejudice under the fourth Barker factor unless the 

postindictment delay is five years or more. [United States v.] 

Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d [225,] 232 [(5th Cir. 2003)] 

(refusing to presume prejudice under the fourth Barker factor 

in a case in which prosecutorial negligence delayed the 

accused's trial for three years and nine months and citing 

Doggett, 505 U.S. at 658, 112 S. Ct. 2686 (presuming prejudice 

after six-year delay caused by the government's negligence); 

United States v. Bergfeld, 280 F.3d 486, 489-91 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(presuming prejudice after a five-year-and-three-month delay 

caused by the government's negligence, but noting that '[h]ad 

the delay been considerably shorter, [the accused] might well 

have been properly required to demonstrate prejudice'); 

United States v. Cardona, 302 F.3d 494, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(presuming prejudice where governmental negligence 

resulted in a delay of more than five years); United States v. 

Brown, 169 F.3d 344, 349-51 (6th Cir. 1999) (presuming 

prejudice where governmental negligence resulted in five and 

one-half-year delay); United States v. Shell, 974 F.2d 1035, 

1036 (9th Cir. 1992) (presuming prejudice where 

governmental negligence resulted in a six-year delay)). Like 

the Doggett Court, we do not adopt a bright-line rule for the 

length of delay that will result in a finding of presumed 

prejudice. But we note that the four-year-and-two-month 

delay in Walker's case is well within the five-year time period 

generally established by federal cases for presuming 

prejudice. Further, '[t]here is no indication from this record 

that either the [State]'s negligence or the resulting length of 

the delay here adversely affected the evidence so as to 

undermine the fairness of a trial.' Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d 

at 233."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 269-70.
CR-2023-0867

13

"[O]ur toleration of such negligence varies inversely with its 

protractedness, cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 

102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1988), and its consequent threat to the fairness of the 

accused's trial." Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 657 (1992). The 

delay here of 20 months is well short of any standard that would trigger 

presumed prejudice. Additionally, '[t]here is no indication from this 

record that either the [State]'s negligence or the resulting length of the 

delay here adversely affected the evidence so as to undermine the 

fairness of a trial.' [United States v. ]Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d [225,]

233 [(5th Cir. 2003)]." Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 269-70. In short, 

MacGrady is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice.

Next, this Court will turn to whether MacGrady demonstrated 

actual prejudice. The Alabama Supreme Court has stated:

"Because 'pretrial delay is often both inevitable and 

wholly justifiable,' Doggett [v. United States], 505 U.S. [647,] 

656, 112 S. Ct. 2686, 120 L. Ed. 2d 520 [(1992)], the fourth 

Barker factor examines whether and to what extent the delay 

has prejudiced the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S. 

Ct. 2182. The United States Supreme Court has recognized 

three types of harm that may result from depriving a 

defendant of the right to a speedy trial: '"oppressive pretrial 

incarceration," "anxiety and concern of the accused," and "the 

possibility that the [accused's] defense will be impaired" by 

dimming memories and loss of exculpatory evidence.' 

Doggett, 505 U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. 2686 (quoting Barker, 407 
CR-2023-0867

14

U.S. at 532, 92 S. Ct. 2182, and citing Smith v. Hooey, 393 

U.S. 374, 377-79, 89 S. Ct. 575, 21 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1969); United 

States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120, 86 S. Ct. 773, 15 L. Ed. 2d 

627 (1966)). 'Of these forms of prejudice, "the most serious is 

the last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to 

prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system."' 505 

U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. 2686 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 

92 S. Ct. 2182)."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 266-67.

MacGrady was not incarcerated, and he did not suggest that his 

defense was impaired in any way by virtue of the delay. Instead, 

MacGrady asserted the second type of harm – anxiety and concern of the 

accused.

This Court notes that there was no sworn testimony offered at the 

hearing in the circuit court. MacGrady did offer, as mentioned above, 

images of emails from Texas Pride Fuels. The first email is a response to 

an apparent application submitted by MacGrady for a position with

Texas Pride Fuels. The email details the work schedule, salary, and 

benefits associated with the position. The email also states that the 

applicant must have a "clean criminal history." (C. 27.) The second email 

purports to be an email directing MacGrady to attend a new-hire 

orientation.
CR-2023-0867

15

At the hearing, defense counsel alleged that MacGrady was 

terminated from this position and another unnamed position because of

the pending criminal charge. Defense counsel also alleged that 

MacGrady had been denied employment with "Coca-Cola, A&G Grocery, 

Mercedes, and other employers. He can't find a job because this case is 

still pending." (R. 6-7.) The State countered defense counsel's claims by 

pointing out that the position with Texas Pride Fuels – the only one for 

which MacGrady offered something that could be construed as evidence 

– required a "clean criminal history." The State represented to the circuit

court that MacGrady has "a significant criminal history," including 

"several felony convictions." (R. 11.) The State also pointed out that 

MacGrady had offered nothing to demonstrate the specific reason he had 

been denied employment with Texas Pride Fuels.

The circuit court, both at the hearing and in her order dismissing 

the case, agreed with the State that MacGrady had a significant criminal 

history. (R. 16; C. 12.) This completely undercuts MacGrady's only 

specific claim of prejudice – that he was denied employment based on the

pending criminal charge. Certainly, MacGrady's prior felony convictions 

would have been more harmful to his search for employment. The circuit 
CR-2023-0867

16

court appeared to recognize this at the hearing, stating, "I don't think the 

defendant was prejudiced, based upon the State's argument, that he had 

a significant criminal history." (R. 16.)

Nevertheless, the circuit court found the existence of prejudice: 

"While [MacGrady] does have some prior criminal history, the 

disadvantage of having a criminal case pending for such a length of time 

demonstrates prejudice to the defendant." (C. 12.) This was error. As 

explained herein, the length of time involved did not warrant a 

presumption of prejudice, and MacGrady offered no other evidence of 

prejudice.

"'With no presumed prejudice and minimal – if any – actual 

prejudice in [MacGrady's] case, the delay did not violate [his] right to a 

speedy trial.' See State v. Jones, 35 So. 3d 644, 659 (Ala. Crim. App. 

2009) (citing Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656, 112 S. Ct. 2686 ('Our speedy trial 

standards recognize that pretrial delay is often both inevitable and 

wholly justifiable.')." State v. Crandle, 368 So. 3d 934, 946 (Ala. Crim. 

App. 2021). "Consequently, 'balancing the four Barker factors, we cannot 

say that the delay in this case experienced by [MacGrady] prejudiced 
CR-2023-0867

17

[him] to the degree that would warrant the dismissal' of the ... charge 

against him at this time." Id.

Conclusion

The record before this Court does not contain sufficient evidence to 

warrant the dismissal of the pending charge against MacGrady. Thus, 

the circuit court improperly granted MacGrady's motion to dismiss based 

on the denial of his right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, the judgment of 

the circuit court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Kellum, McCool, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur.