Opinion ID: 1149229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court denied duplantis' constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Text: ¶ 13. On August 15, 1995, Duplantis filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial court that states in pertinent part, On October 27, 1994, the Mississippi Supreme Court remanded this case for a new trial. Defendant filed his motion for a speedy trial and for access to his attorney in November, 1994, at which time Defendant was housed at the State penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. Defendant was moved to the Madison County jail on July 27, 1995, 270 days after the Mississippi Supreme Court remanded this case for a new trial, subsequent to which the charges in the indictment in this case must be dismissed for failure to provide Defendant a speedy trial as he had requested immediately after the remand of this case by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The State, having denied Defendant his speedy trial, is now estopped from trying the issues against him raised by the indictment in this case under both the applicable statute of the State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States of America. The trial judge responded to this motion by ruling Duplantis' constitutional right to speedy trial had not been violated. ¶ 14. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) sets forth the test for a defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial. The Barker factors are: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether any prejudice resulted to the defendant as a result of the delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-32, 92 S.Ct. at 2191-93.
¶ 15. As for the first factor, the speedy trial clock begins to run for purposes of determining a violation of a defendant's right to speedy retrial on the date this Court reverses his first conviction. State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Miss. 1991). Furthermore, [c]ommon sense suggests that, ordinarily on retrial, less time will be necessary to bring a case to trial than before. Id. at 1254. We have held delays of 370 days, 298 days and 280 days as presumptively prejudicial in initial trials of defendants. [3] ¶ 16. The speedy trial clock began to run in this case on October 27, 1994, the date of the issuance of the mandate in Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 1994). Duplantis was not retried until August 22, 1995, 299 days after the court's reversal. Therefore, the delay in this case is presumptively prejudicial.
¶ 17. When determining the reason for the delay, those delays which are not attributable to the defendant will count against the state, unless the prosecution can show good cause. Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1377 (Miss. 1988). However, a bad motive on the prosecution's part significantly affects the balancing test. Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982). In fact, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that an intentional delay by the prosecution in order to gain a tactical advantage is improper. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324, 92 S.Ct. 455, 465, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). Nonetheless, the Court found no error in Barker when the prosecution deliberately delayed the defendant's trial for five years while it awaited the outcome of a separate trial of his alleged accomplice in criminal activity. The Court held there was no speedy trial violation because Barker failed to demonstrate prejudice to his defense. The Court particularly noted that Barker made no motion for a speedy trial until the state's twelfth continuance. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 516-18, 92 S.Ct. at 2185-86. ¶ 18. In the case sub judice, the state argued, and the trial court agreed, that it was divested of jurisdiction until the United States Supreme Court ruled upon the state's petition for writ of certiorari on the determinative issue in the first trial. The defense responds by emphasizing that the state neither requested nor received a stay of the mandate issued by this Court after the first trial to forthwith try the defendant. Thus, following the defense's argument, jurisdiction was in fact in the circuit court. Accordingly, the defense asserts that the trial judge should suffer a reversal for not proceeding with trial more expeditiously. ¶ 19. Although Duplantis is technically correct that jurisdiction of this case remained in the trial court, that fact alone does not invalidate the state's reason for delay. The policy goal of the speedy trial requirement is simply that defendants should not be made to wait for trial so long that justice is impaired. Ross v. State, 605 So.2d 17, 23 (Miss. 1992). The record reveals no action by the state to deliberately delay or impede this case from going to trial in order to gain a tactical advantage. Neither does it reflect any bad faith on the state's behalf to undermine the defense's resources. Therefore, this factor does not weigh heavily against the state. Id.
¶ 20. Duplantis made numerous requests that he be given a speedy trial to the trial judge. His first request came on November 3, 1994, only one week after we reversed his conviction in the first trial. Next, he asserted his right to a speedy trial in a letter to Judge Gordon dated May 23, 1995. On June 2, 1995, he filed a motion requesting that there be no speedy trial delays. He requested a speedy trial again at his motion hearing in July, 1995. He filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial on August 15, 1996. He again asserted his right in a letter to Judge Gordon dated August 16, 1995. And, on August 14, 1995, he once again filed a motion asserting his right. ¶ 21. It is quite clear from the record that Duplantis made his desire for a speedy trial known early and often. This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of Duplantis.
¶ 22. Duplantis does not bear the burden of proving actual prejudice in this case. On the contrary, when the length of delay is presumptively prejudicial, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show that the delay did not prejudice the defendant. State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Miss. 1991). However, if the defendant fails to make a showing of actual prejudice to his defense, this prong of the balancing test cannot weigh heavily in his favor. Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381, 387 (Miss. 1992). Prejudice to the defendant may manifest itself in two ways. First, the delay may actually impair the accused's ability to defend himself. [citation omitted]. Second, the defendant may suffer because of the restraints to his liberty, whether it be the loss of his physical freedom, loss of a job, loss of friends or family, damage to his reputation, or anxiety. Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381, 386 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted).
¶ 23. Notwithstanding the fact that this was the second time Duplantis had to construct a defense based upon these very same facts, he made numerous complaints to the trial court explaining the difficulties he was experiencing in preparing his defense and securing witnesses. Duplantis has failed, however, to explain how these difficulties would have been ameliorated by bringing his case before a jury more quickly. In fact, logic dictates the contrary to be true. The sooner that Duplantis was brought to trial, the less time he would have had to prepare an adequate defense. ¶ 24. The trial court recognized the time constraints in which Duplantis was working, and offered him a continuance so that he might have ample time to prepare his defense. Duplantis declined this continuance on the basis that if he were to accept the offer, he would lose his right to assert his speedy trial claim on appeal. Duplantis should have accepted. He cannot decline the trial court's offer to grant him more time to prepare a defense, and then argue to us that his defense was inadequate because he lacked time to prepare it. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the delay in bringing this case to trial impeded Duplantis' ability to present any witness material to his defense. Neither is there indication that the passing of time faded the memory of any defense witness. Duplantis' ability to defend himself has not been impaired.
¶ 25. At the time Duplantis was continuously asserting his right to a speedy trial, he was serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for felony jail escape. Thus, the delay in bringing his case to trial did not lead to a denial of personal liberty that Duplantis was not already being restrained from enjoying. While it is true that Duplantis surely felt the anxiety of being accused of a crime that carried a possible death sentence, this anxiety alone does not amount to prejudice worthy of reversal.