Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Stephret HARVEY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2003-06-20
Citations: 849 So. 2d 514
Docket Number: No. 2003-KK-1118
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Stephret HARVEY.
Judges: CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in denial and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 849
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Stephret HARVEY.
No. 2003-KK-1118.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 20, 2003.
CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in denial and assigns reasons.
JOHNSON, J., to grant for Justice WEIMERS reasons assigned.
WEIMER, J., would grant the writ and assigns reasons.

Opinion:
h CALOGERO, Chief Justice
concurs in the denial of the writ application:
Here, as in State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198, the trial judge denied the motion to quash and has a great deal of discretion in that regard. The facts of this case are, in some respects, stronger for the defendant-i.e., the district attorney twice entered nolle grosses when the trial judge denied his motion for continuance then reinstituted charges, the motions for continuance were not based on valid reasons, and the defendant has been incarcerated since his arrest. However, the defendant cannot jump the first hurdle of the test established by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), for showing that his right to a speedy trial has been violated since only eleven months passed between the filing of the bill of information and the filing of the motion to quash, and that period of time is insufficient to show a presumptively prejudicial delay. Since the defendant cannot establish the first Barker factor, the other factors should not be considered. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant's motion to quash.