Opinion ID: 1456188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: motion to dismiss count ii

Text: Count II of Hall's Information had been dismissed two times before it was filed for a third time and a trial ultimately held. Hall claims that W.R.Cr.P. 48 mandated dismissal of Count II because almost two years had elapsed between the arraignment upon the first filing and the trial after the third filing. Hall reaches that conclusion by adding the days after each arraignment until dismissal of the first and second charging, to the days between arraignment and trial on the third recharging, to reach 120 days between arraignment and trial. That is not what Rule 48 requires. Rule 48(b)(8) provides that upon dismissal under the rule, the State is not barred from again prosecuting the defendant for the same offense unless the defendant made a written demand for speedy trial or can demonstrate prejudice from the delay. Implied in that reading is that the 120-day period will begin anew after each filing. To interpret otherwise would make it impossible to dismiss on the 120th day as required in Rule 48(b)(6) and later recharge as allowed in (b)(8) because there would be no time remaining between a new arraignment and the trial. Hall did not file a written demand for speedy trial before Count II was dismissed the second time. Therefore, within the procedural framework of Rule 48, there was no violation. However, a two-year delay from the first charge and ultimate trial requires application of the factors considered in the constitutional right to a speedy trial that the rule was designed to enforce. Rule 48 is a procedural rule designed to protect a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. Included within the rule are the factors to be considered in evaluation of a constitutional speedy trial claim. This court, as with other procedural rules, will examine claims based upon procedural violations of the rule. However, we cannot ignore allegations of constitutional magnitude by committing ourselves to a procedural straightjacket. To that end, the statement that Rule 48 will provide the exclusive framework for our speedy trial analysis was overly broad. McDermott v. State, 897 P.2d 1295, 1300 (Wyo.1995). Compliance with Rule 48 by litigants and the trial court will go a long way in protecting a defendant's right to a speedy trial. However, it is also necessary that the courts examine speedy trial issues in light of the constitutional factors which provide the underpinnings of the rule. In this case, as stated above, there was compliance with Rule 48 in that the defendant did not file a demand for speedy trial before the first or second dismissal, and a trial was held within 120 days of the arraignment on the third recharging of Count II. However, even though the dismissals were in compliance with the rule, the repeated application of 120 days must be examined to assure constitutional compliance. The four factors to be considered in evaluation of a constitutional speedy trial claim are: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. Cosco v. State, 503 P.2d 1403, 1405 (Wyo.1972). Considering all of these factors, we do not find defendant's right to a speedy trial violated. During the time from the first charge to the final recharging, the investigation was ongoing. Perhaps the State was improvident in its early charging decisions, but it is apparent from the record that information later discovered resulted in a new count being added (Count I) which was included for the first time in the final charge which included Count II from previously dismissed prosecutions. Prior to the dismissal of Count II from the previously aborted prosecutions, Hall never asserted her right to a speedy trial. Less than vigorous assertions of the right to a speedy trial are given little weight. Yung v. State, 906 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Wyo. 1995) ( citing Robinson v. State, 627 P.2d 168, 171 (Wyo.1981)). Hall filed a demand for speedy trial only one month before her trial was finally held. We also agree with the district court's finding that Hall failed to demonstrate prejudice that would bar the State from prosecuting her for Count II. Hall argues only that she was prejudiced by pretrial anxiety and that the delay itself was prejudicial. This is not the type of prejudice that would mandate dismissing Count II. It is true that a certain amount of inconvenience, anxiety, and societal disrepute accompanies the filing of any criminal charge.    [Appellant] has failed to demonstrate in any way that he suffered prejudice in any extraordinary or unusual manner.    [Appellant] has made no showing that he suffered unusual prejudice by the pretrial delay, nor do we find any indication of that in the record. Wehr v. State, 841 P.2d 104, 114 (Wyo.1992) (emphasis added); see also Grable v. State, 649 P.2d 663, 671 (Wyo.1982). Hall likewise has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary or unusual prejudice caused by the delay. As the district court noted, Hall was charged with Count I for the first time in the recharging of Count II and was concurrently awaiting trial on the new Count I.