Opinion ID: 1087302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Owens’s Motion for a New Trial

Text: Owens’s second argument—that his due process rights were violated because the state court waited 25 years before ruling on his motion for a new trial—also fails. The Supreme Court has never held that there is a constitutional right to a speedy direct appeal in a state criminal case. Nor are we able to find any precedent suggesting that a constitutional violation arises from an untimely ruling 17 Case: 12-12590 Date Filed: 10/24/2013 Page: 18 of 18 on a motion for a new trial. Consequently, we must afford deference to the Georgia Supreme Court’s determination because it cannot be said that its decision denying Owens’s motion for a new trial was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Washington v. Crosby, 324 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003).