Opinion ID: 845991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Barker Factors

Text: The first Barker factor is the length of the delay. Because the length of delay between defendant's arrest and the trial was over nineteen months, the delay was presumptively prejudicial. Collins, supra at 695, 202 N.W.2d 769. Thus, we must consider the other Barker factors to determine if defendant has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. Under the second Barker factor, the prosecution offered no compelling reason for the delay between defendant's arrest and the time the prosecutor's office received notice of defendant's incarceration on July 16, 2001. In fact, the prosecutor agreed that the delay had been inexcusable. From the time the prosecutor's office learned of defendant's incarceration, it did attempt to move the proceedings along as quickly as possible. The trial court found that the delay between July 16, 2001, and the final pretrial conference on October 12, 2001, was attributable to defendant and his counsel. Defendant's first pretrial conference on the armed robbery charge was set for July 27, 2001, only eleven days after the prosecutor received written notice that defendant was incarcerated and had a pending charge. This conference was adjourned when defendant's attorney failed to appear. The conference was rescheduled for August 10, 2001. At this conference, defense counsel indicated that he intended to file a motion to dismiss the armed robbery charge based on a violation of the 180-day rule. However, counsel never filed this motion. The trial court scheduled another pretrial conference for September 21, 2001, but defense counsel once again failed to appear. On September 28, 2001, defendant sought to terminate his appointed attorney's services. The court appointed a new attorney to represent defendant who had to familiarize himself with the case. Thus, we see no clear error in the trial court's finding that defendant was responsible for this delay. The delay between the October 12, 2001, final pretrial conference and the January 9, 2002, trial date can be attributed to docket congestion. Although delays inherent in the court system, e.g., docket congestion, `are technically attributable to the prosecution, they are given a neutral tint and are assigned only minimal weight in determining whether a defendant was denied a speedy trial.' People v. Gilmore, 222 Mich.App. 442, 460, 564 N.W.2d 158 (1997), quoting People v. Wickham, 200 Mich.App. 106, 111, 503 N.W.2d 701 (1993). The trial court weighed the third prong of the Barker test heavily against defendant. As of the final pretrial conference, defendant had not objected to any of the delays. Moreover, he accepted the January 9, 2002, trial date offered by the court. Further, defendant did not assert a speedy trial violation until the day before trial. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in weighing this factor heavily against defendant. See Collins, supra at 692-694, 202 N.W.2d 769 (the prejudice prong weighed heavily against a defendant who did not assert his right to a speedy trial until the day before trial). The fourth and final prong of Barker concerns the prejudice to defendant. There are two types of prejudice which a defendant may experience, that is, prejudice to his person and prejudice to the defense. Collins, supra at 694, 202 N.W.2d 769. Defendant argues that he was personally prejudiced by the lengthy incarceration because (1) he received no credit for the time served before sentencing because he was on parole when he was arrested, and (2) the delay caused him to suffer mental anxiety. We agree that defendant suffered considerable personal deprivation by his 19-month incarceration before trial. Nonetheless, this Court has held that the prejudice prong of the Barker test may properly weigh against a defendant incarcerated for an even longer period if his defense is not prejudiced by the delay. See, e.g., People v. Chism, 390 Mich. 104, 115, 211 N.W.2d 193 (1973) (on the matter of prejudice to defendant because of the length of time before his trial, the most important thing is that there is no evidence that a fair trial was jeopardized by delay, although obviously 27 months of incarceration is not an insignificant personal hardship); see also Grimmett, supra at 606-607, 202 N.W.2d 278 (the prejudice prong weighed against the defendant where the delay was 19 months, but did not prejudice the defendant's defense). Prejudice to the defense is the more serious concern, `because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system.' Chism, supra at 114, 211 N.W.2d 193, quoting Barker, supra at 532, 92 S.Ct. 2182. The trial court found that defendant's ability to defend was not prejudiced by the delay. Because the record contains no specific proof of such prejudice, the trial court's finding was not erroneous. Although a 19-month delay is presumptively prejudicial, the trial court did not err in ruling that defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. The trial court's factual findings underlying this decision were not clearly erroneous. Defendant did not object to any delays, agreed to the trial date, and did not assert his right to a speedy trial until the day before trial. He did not demonstrate that any delay prejudiced the defense of his case. Further, defendant and his counsel were partially responsible for the delay. Therefore, the trial court properly declined to dismiss the charge against defendant.