Opinion ID: 1667082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Manix was denied a speedy trial?

Text: ¶ 4. Manix argues that he was deprived his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial because almost four years (precisely, 1,430 days) elapsed between his arraignment on the charge of capital murder and his trial. The following events and dates are key to understanding if Manix's rights were violated. Date Event 7/7/98 Indictment 9/11/98 Arraignment (Trial Date (T.D.) 11/23/1998) 9/21-22/98 Orders entered for body search of defendant 11/23/98 First Date set for Trial 12/22/98 Notice of Trial (T.D. 2/22/99) 1/25/99 Motion to Continuance (defendant) 1/26/99 Order of Continuance 4/19/99 Notice of Trial (T.D. 5/24/99) 6/9/99 Scheduling Order (T.D. 8/30/99) (the court was involved with the trial of C. Douglas Gulley on the 5/24/99 trial date) 7/8 & 13/99 Motion to Continue (State) 7/14/99 Notice of Trial (T.D. 8/30/99) 8/31/99 Order of Continuance (requested by the State, although the court was involved in another trial at this time and was not available) 9/3/99 Scheduling Order (T.D. 12/6/99) 10/1/99 Order Appointing Special Prosecutor (Anthony N. Lawrence, III.) 11/5/99 Motion to Continue (defendant) 11/12/99 Order of Continuance (T.D. 7/17/00) 2/24/00 Order of Continuance (T.D. 7/17/00) 5/12/00 Order Appointing Special Prosecutor (Albert Necaise) 6/30/00 Motion to Continue (State) 7/10/00 Order of Continuance (T.D. 10/2/00) 8/16/00 Motion to Continue (defendant Ore Tenus) 9/15/00 Order of Continuance (T.D. 2/12/01) 2/5/01 Motion to Continue (defendant) 2/12/01 Order of Continuance (T.D. 4/9/01) 4/3/01 Motion to Continue (defendant) 4/9/01 Order of Continuance (T.D. July 2001 Term) 9/17/01 Notice of Trial (T.D. 11/5/01) 10/18/01 Motion to Continue (defendant) 10/23/01 Order of Continuance (T.D. 3/4/02) 4/10/02 Notice of Trial (T.D. 5/28/02) 5/1/02 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Grant a Speedy Trial 5/10/02 Order of Continuance Sua Sponte (T.D. 8/12/02) 8/02/02 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 08/09/02 Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Grant a Speedy Trial 08/13/02 Trial Commenced ¶ 5. A defendant in a criminal case in Mississippi has a guaranteed right to a speedy trial embodied in the bedrock of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) and in Article 3, § 26 of the Mississippi Constitution. In addition, our Legislature has seen fit to engrave particulars upon the abstract stone of the two constitutional rights; Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (Rev.2000) creates a right to a speedy trial within 270 days after arraignment. ¶ 6. Manix filed two motions to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial which were both denied by the trial court. The trial court acknowledged that the massive delay was unusual, but found that sufficient cause existed for the delays. Manix disagrees and asserts that the trial court committed error by denying the motions. ¶ 7. Speedy trial claims necessarily entail questions of fact regarding whether the trial delay rose from good cause. DeLoach v. State, 722 So.2d 512, 516 (Miss.1998). We will uphold the trial court's findings on the issue of a speedy trial where supported by substantial, credible evidence; [but] if no probative evidence supports the trial courts's finding ... [we] will ordinarily reverse. Ross v. State, 605 So.2d 17, 21 (Miss.1992). As in other cases in which the trial court must make factual determinations, we review those findings with a deferential standard that asks if the trial court made a clearly erroneous decision. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 122 (Miss.1989). While the constitutional and statutory rights are factually intertwined, we will separate them to address the underlying legal issues.