Opinion ID: 1604129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Grant a Speedy Trial.

Text: ¶ 34. We review denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Hersick v. State, 904 So.2d 116, 126 (Miss.2004). ¶ 35. Our state law provides defendants with a right to a speedy trial under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-17-1 (Rev.2007). The statute reads: Unless good cause be shown, and a continuance duly granted by the court, all offenses for which indictment has been presented to the court shall be tried no later than two hundred seventy (270) days after the accused has been arraigned. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (Rev.2007). ¶ 36. Scott filed three motions for continuance to delay his trial, which is directly contrary to his assertion that he requested, and was denied, a speedy trial. In addition, Scott sought to dismiss his counsel on several occasions and filed several motions pro se. Much like the defendant in Guice v. State , Scott appears to be aggrieved, not because he was denied a speedy trial, but rather because he was denied a dismissal for lack of a speedy trial. Guice v. State, 952 So.2d 129, 139 (Miss.2007). Just as this Court found in Guice, defendant's requests for continuance and his filing of motions must be considered when applying the balancing test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). ¶ 37. Under Barker, four factors must be considered to determine whether or not a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights has occurred and whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. This Court must consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his rights, and whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. ¶ 38. Applying the law to the facts in this case, the length of the delay does exceed the 270-day benchmark set forth by the Mississippi Legislature. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (Rev.2007). However, the delay is largely attributable to Scott and somewhat attributable to a crowded docket. See Manix v. State, 895 So.2d 167 (Miss.2005) (holding that a speedy trial had not been denied due to a backlog in the crime lab and the failure of the defendant to provide an address for an exculpatory witness). ¶ 39. Scott cannot be considered to have asserted his right to a speedy trial when he was asking for continuances to delay his trial on the same day he was requesting a dismissal for failure to provide a speedy trial. Additionally, there is no evidence that Scott was in any way prejudiced by any delay. As we set forth in Guice, a delay is not per se evidence of prejudice to the defendant. Guice, 952 So.2d at 139 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. 2182). ¶ 40. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' ruling that not enough evidence is present to determine whether Scott was afforded a speedy trial, we find sufficient evidence to meet the standard set forth in Barker to weigh in the State's favor. We reverse the Court of Appeals and vacate its judgment granting a new evidentiary hearing.