Opinion ID: 1658324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Prejudice Resulting to The Defendant

Text: Appellant claims he was prejudiced by serving ten months in prison, defending himself at the parole revocation hearing, and being unable to work to procure funds to hire an attorney. This Court finds that the revocation of appellant's parole and the ten months he spent in prison were not the result of an inexpeditious trial. They were result of a mistaken parole revocation. As for appellant's inability to work to procure money for an attorney, the Court notes that appellant was assigned a public defender and there has been no accusation of ineffective assistance of counsel. This appellant has suffered no prejudice comparable to the prejudice suffered by the appellants in Perry and Bailey. The appellants in those cases were denied the opportunity to participate in programs to decrease the length of their terms; they had reduced chances of being elevated to trust status and to earn additional good time; and they could not participate in work release programs. In addition, the appellant in Bailey argued he was prejudiced by the loss of opportunity to locate witnesses who had disappeared before his trial. In the final determination of whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial, the four factors enunciated in Barker must be considered together. No individual factor may completely dispose of the issue. Perry, 419 So.2d at 199. The strongest, and possibly only, argument Lightsey has is the length of time between his arrest and his trial. (457 days). His arguments under the remaining Barker factors are weak. Considering the Barker factors together, the Court finds that Lightsey's right to a speedy trial was not denied.