Opinion ID: 860114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Well, I am sure it would.

Text: The next excerpt was also elicited from Officer Ramsey: Q. Would it probably have been easier to recall if this had been tried -- because it has been two years, is it harder to recall these facts? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that affects your ability to tell us what happened, doesn't it? A. On some details, I am sure it would. Q. I asked you the question, is your memory affected because of the time frame? A. I am sure it is for some things. ¶37. This Court has held that once the defendant has passed the threshold of presumptive prejudice, the burden falls on the State to disprove that prejudice. Ferguson v. State, 576 So. 2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 1991). The State has wholly failed to rebut what this Court is obligated to presume, that Simmons in fact suffered prejudice. The State merely put forth a sentence in its brief stating that they had not prejudiced Simmons, nothing more. I would hold that this factor favors Simmons. ¶38. The only Barker factor that does not favor Simmons is that she did not assert her right to a speedy trial in a timely manner. However, in balancing the four Barker factors in light of all of the circumstances, three of the four factors weigh heavily in Simmons' favor that she was denied her constitutional right to a speedy trial. ¶39. When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges. Bailey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So. 2d 197 (Miss. 1988); Turner v. State, 383 So. 2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). This Court has determined that the only remedy for violation of an appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial is discharge. Trotter v. State, 554 So. 2d 313 (Miss. 1989); Smith v. State, 550 So. 2d 406 (Miss. 1989). STATUTORY RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ¶40. The record shows that four hundred forty days elapsed between Simmons' arraignment and trial.(2) Our speedy trial statute, Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-1, is clear, it states [u]nless good cause is shown, and a continuance duly granted by the court, all offenses for which indictments are presented to the court shall be tried no later than two hundred seventy (270) days after the accused has been arraigned. We have interpreted this statute as clear and unambiguous. Lightsey v. State, 493 So. 2d 375 (Miss. 1986). The state bears the burden of bringing to trial one charged with crime within the time prescribed by statute or showing good reason for failure to comply with the statute. Turner, 383 So. 2d at 491. ¶41. The statutory right to a speedy trial attaches and time begins running after the accused has been arraigned. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-1. In calculating the statutory time, we do not include the date of arraignment, but do include the date of trial and weekends, unless the last day of the two-hundredseventy-day period falls on Sunday. Ransom v. State, 435 So. 2d 1169, 1169-70 (Miss. 1983). In this case the time from Simmons' arraignment until the first day of trial was four hundred forty days. Since this delay is obviously over the statutory limit of two hundred seventy, the burden falls upon the State to show good reason for failure to comply with the statute. Turner, 383 So. 2d at 491. ¶42. The State put forth several reasons for the delay. First, the State asserted that defendant's attorney notified the lower court that he would be moving for an individual private psychiatric examination; however, the defendant did not file in a timely manner, and the initial trial date was missed. In Reed v. State, 506 So. 2d 277 (Miss. 1987), the Court noted that [a]pparently, . . . the initial trial date passed because the trial court had failed to resolve certain pretrial motions that were filed. Id. at 281. The State submits that there was a de facto continuance of the case from the April 8, 1991, trial date, by agreement between the parties, that the defense sought this continuance, and that good cause existed and was shown for this continuance. Nowhere in the record does it reflect why the original date was missed, but a motion was stamped filed by Simmons' attorney on April 11, 1991, three days after the original trial date. ¶43. Although the clock was tolled at the original day of the trial, the majority does not start the clock until the next term of court, which was May 20th. However, Simmons filed the motion for an independent psychiatric evaluation only three days after the original trial court date. In fact, a hearing was held on this motion filed by Simmons on April 27, 1991. So, Simmons was prepared to continue on this date. Thus, I would start the clock running on April 27, 1991, not the date urged by the State, and agreed to by the majority. I would toll the clock for nineteen days. The statutory clock had run seventy-six days before this delay. ¶44. The next factor, which tolled the two-hundred-seventy-day clock, was a continuance granted by the trial court. Before the original trial date, the defense advised the trial court and the State that they would file a motion to have Simmons examined. When the lower court called up the motion for a hearing, defense counsel indicated that he preferred that Simmons be examined by a doctor other than the ones at Whitfield, on the theory that the doctors at Whitfield are State agents. The trial judge's response, in effect, was that he would regard the defendant's motion as a motion for examination of Simmons by a doctor other than the doctors at Whitfield but that he wanted Simmons to be examined at Whitfield first. So, on April 11, 1991, the trial court judge decided that the State should first file a motion for an examination at the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield and if the findings were not what Simmons wanted then the trial judge would then entertain a motion for an independent examination. At this hearing, Simmons certainly did not agree to a continuance, so I find it unconvincing that the majority finds this a de facto continuance. The State did not file this motion until one hundred two days after the judge asked for this motion. I would find the delay of the State by not filing the requisite motion for a psychiatric examination for one hundred two days is egregious, unlike the majority who finds this delay minute. When the State did file the motion for an examination the lower court granted a continuance until the examination was complete. ¶45. The clock ran until the State filed its motion and upon such time the clock was tolled. The time that elapsed between April 27, 1991, and the date which the State filed its motion was one hundred two days. When the State finally entered its motion for an examination and continuance ordered by the court the clock was tolled for a period of one hundred seven days and when the State filed the psychiatric evaluation report on November 22, 1991, the clock was started again. ¶46. The next delay which the majority finds tolled the clock is what the State and the majority call a mutually agreed upon continuance by both parties. The majority asserts that this agreement occurred after Simmons' motion for dismissal on February 18, 1992. However, nowhere in the record does Simmons ask for more time, in fact it is the State which asks for more time. The pertinent part of the record states: Ms. Pacific (District Attorney): Judge, why don't we carry it over to the 23rd which will be the 1st day of the next term? The Court: The 23rd of March? Mr. Butts (Attorney for the defense): All right, sir. Ms. Pacific: That will give us some time. The Court: I just want to get it set for trial. If you all want to make a motion for continuance that's fine. I just want to keep everything on the record straight. Mr. Clark: Our motions will be other types of motions. (Emphasis added). ¶47. It is quite clear that it was the State who asked for the extra time and no motions for a continuance can be found in the record; however, the majority finds that this is a mutually agreed upon continuance. It is clear that the defense merely acquiesced when the trial judge informed him of the time, and later stated that the defense would not be filing a motion for continuance. It is important to note that this transaction took place immediately after the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the two-hundred-seventy-day statute, Mississippi Code Annotated § 9917-1, and under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. ¶48. It is the State that bears the burden of bringing the accused to trial in a speedy fashion. Perry v. State, 419 So. 2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982); Vickery v. State, 535 So. 2d 1371, 1377 (Miss. 1988). Because it was the State that asked for the continuance and no good cause was shown, the clock never stopped after the filing of a psychiatric evaluation report on November 22, 1991. The time between that date and the first day of trial was one hundred thirty-six days. The total time between the arraignment minus the continuance granted by the lower court and the defendant's delay was three hundred fourteen days. This is well over the statutory limits as set out in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-1. ¶49. The two-hundred-seventy-day statute, does not contemplate a showing of prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend herself before the indictment is dismissed with prejudice. However, as recently as the case of Jasso v. State, 655 So. 2d 30 (Miss. 1995), and the case of State v. Harrison, 648 So. 2d 66 (Miss. 1994), this Court has, on its own volition, added the requirement that an accused must show prejudice before she may effectively argue that her statutory right to a speedy trial has been violated. The majority states that Simmons failed to demonstrate any prejudice whatsoever. Prejudice was shown by Simmons by the relevant portions of the trial record included in this dissent. Also, is not being confined in a jail for six hundred fifty days prejudicial? If jail time is not considered prejudicial to this Court, then why do we sentence criminals to jail when they are convicted of a crime? The requirement that the accused show any other form of prejudice, besides the serving of jail time, defies all logic. ¶50. It follows that if the period of two hundred seventy days is exceeded, the State may not bring the defendant to trial. A dismissal with prejudice is logically the only possible remedy for a violation of the two hundred seventy day rule under our jurisprudence. Ford v. State, 589 So. 2d 1261, 1263 (Miss. 1991); Moore v. State, 556 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Miss. 1990); Payne v. State, 363 So. 2d 278, 279 (Miss. 1978). ¶51. Since more than two hundred seventy days passed between Simmons' arraignment and her trial and I find no good cause shown by the State in the record for the delay, it follows that the trial court erred when it denied Simmons' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, I must dissent. McRAE, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.