Opinion ID: 863820
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prejudice by the delay

Text: ¶22. The only prejudice that Wheeler alleges on appeal is his summary statement that the investigator was unable to locate a material witness due to the time lapse. No further information is given. The trial court found no prejudice was shown because of delays in the trial. Likewise, we see no evidence of prejudice either. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of the State. ¶23. The only factor that weighs in Wheeler's favor is the time between his indictment and trial, and the State successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice. Jefferson, 818 So.2d at 1108. In conclusion, the relevant factors and the facts of this case indicate that Wheeler's right to a speedy trial was not violated. 2. STATUTORY RIGHT, MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-17-1 (2000) ¶24. As noted above, the statutory period for speedy trial rights runs from the date of arraignment. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (2000). Wheeler was originally arraigned on September 8, 1999. As noted in the discussion of Wheeler's constitutional speedy trial rights, the State sufficiently met the burden of establishing good cause for the delays. See State v. Magnusen, 646 So.2d at 1282 Therefore, this issue is also without merit.