Opinion ID: 1866897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Speedy Trial Violation

Text: In his motion for postconviction relief, McHenry made several allegations related to his claim that his right to a statutory speedy trial was violated by his trial counsel's deficient performance prior to the commencement of his first trial. McHenry generally alleged that (1) the 6-month statutory limit for trying him on the charges in the original information had expired by the time of his first trial because, in part, McHenry had refused to consent to his trial counsel's request for a continuance, (2) trial counsel failed to assert McHenry's right to a speedy trial or seek a discharge on that ground, and (3) trial counsel colluded with the prosecutor for the purpose of denying McHenry his right to a speedy trial. McHenry does not claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and we do not consider such topic. McHenry specifically alleged in his postconviction motion that in June 1993, his defense counsel approached him with a waiver of his speedy trial right, which he refused to sign. McHenry further alleged that he informed his counsel at the time his counsel approached him with the waiver that he wanted a speedy trial. He alleged that a week after this incident, he received a letter from his attorney stating that the court would grant the continuance even though McHenry had not personally waived his speedy trial right. McHenry alleged that he attempted to call his attorney and immediately wrote back to correct this misunderstanding but did not receive a response. The record indicates that after the motion for continuance was filed in June 1993, the court rescheduled trial from July 6 to September 14 because McHenry's counsel was not prepared for trial. McHenry contends that where he refused to waive his right to a speedy trial, the postconviction court erred in determining that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1207 (Reissue 1995) requires discharge of a defendant whose case has not been tried within 6 months after the filing of the information, unless the 6 months are extended by any period to be excluded in computing the time for trial. State v. Turner, 252 Neb. 620, 564 N.W.2d 231 (1997). Section 29-1207(4)(b) excludes delays resulting from a continuance granted at the request or with the consent of the defendant or his counsel. (Emphasis supplied.) The plain language of § 29-1207(4)(b) anticipates a request for a continuance made solely by counsel, as occurred in this case. See State v. Mather, 264 Neb. 182, 646 N.W.2d 605 (2002) (in reading statute, court must determine and give effect to purpose and intent of Legislature as ascertained from entire language of statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense). Under § 29-1207, this court has stated that a defendant has the right to waive a speedy trial and consent to a continuance as long as he was properly advised either by counsel or the court of his rights to a speedy trial. State v. Williams, 211 Neb. 650, 654, 319 N.W.2d 748, 751 (1982). When a delay in trial is attributable to a defense motion for a continuance filed within the statutory period, defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss. See State v. Turner, supra (rejecting defendant's claim on direct appeal of ineffective assistance, based in part on his counsel's alleged failure to renew motion for speedy trial dismissal, when delays, including defense counsel's motions for continuance, were properly excludable under § 29-1207(4)). Although we have not addressed the specific issue of a defendant's refusal to consent to a continuance, we have recognized that defense counsel's reasonable strategic decisions could effectively waive a defendant's statutory right to speedy trial. See State v. Russell, 248 Neb. 723, 539 N.W.2d 8 (1995) (rejecting defendant's postconviction allegations that defense counsel, in filing motion to suppress, provided ineffective assistance by failing to protect defendant's right to speedy trial). In Russell, we stated that defense counsel's decision to toll the 6-month time period in order to move to suppress evidence was a competent decision. (Emphasis supplied.) 248 Neb. at 729, 539 N.W.2d at 14. This court has stated that `except for such basic decisions as ... whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, or testify in his or her own behalf, a defendant is bound by the tactical or strategic decisions made by his or her counsel.' State v. Nesbitt, 264 Neb. 612, 623, 650 N.W.2d 766, 778-79 (2002). Given the language of § 29-1207(4)(b) and our case law, it is clear that the statutory right to a speedy trial is not a personal right that can be waived only by a defendant. This conclusion is in accord with cases decided elsewhere under similar statutory language. Indeed, several courts in other jurisdictions have explicitly held in direct appeals that a defense counsel's request for a continuance in order to prepare for trial waived the defendant's statutory right to speedy trial over the defendant's objection to the continuance. See, Townsend v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 774, 543 P.2d 619, 126 Cal.Rptr. 251 (1975) (concluding that defendant was bound by counsel's continuances, requested because heavy caseload had impeded counsel's preparedness for trial, despite defendant's refusal to waive time on the record and demands to court to be tried); State v. LeFlore, 308 N.W.2d 39 (Iowa 1981) (determining that statutory right to speedy trial is not personal; upholding counsel's continuance and waiver of defendant's statutory right to speedy trial on ground that counsel was unprepared for trial, despite defendant's refusal to sign waiver); State v. Ward, 227 Kan. 663, 608 P.2d 1351 (1980) (concluding that matter of trial preparation is strategic and tactical decision; defense counsel's continuances extended statutory period for trial despite defendant's objections); State v. McBreen, 54 Ohio St.2d 315, 376 N.E.2d 593 (1978) (holding that defense counsel had authority to waive statutory time for trial for reasons of trial preparation and that defendant was bound by waiver even though waiver was executed without defendant's consent); State v. Campbell, 103 Wash.2d 1, 691 P.2d 929 (1984) (concluding that defendant could not show prejudice because of defense counsel's continuance over his objections when continuance ensured more effective representation and fair trial). See, also, State v. Sayers, 211 Neb. 555, 319 N.W.2d 438 (1982) (citing Townsend as example of courts holding that defendant is bound by strategic decisions of defense counsel). It has been recognized that defense counsel's authority to waive a defendant's statutory right to speedy trial cannot extend to excuse `representation [that] is so ineffective that it can be described as a farce and a sham. ...' See Townsend, 15 Cal.3d at 781, 543 P.2d at 624, 126 Cal.Rptr. at 256. The instant case presents no such failure. The continuance extended the statutory period for approximately 2 months in a complex murder trial involving two codefendants. Indeed, McHenry may well have been denied effective assistance of counsel if counsel had proceeded to trial unprepared. See People v. Carr, 9 Ill.App.3d 382, 384, 292 N.E.2d 492, 494 (1972) (stating that [i]f the court had acceded to defendant's demands [for immediate trial], and had defendant been found guilty, the question would surely have arisen as to whether defendant had been denied the effective assistance of counsel who had stated that he was not prepared to defend). We determine that defense counsel's request for a continuance in order to prepare for trial waived McHenry's statutory right to a speedy trial despite McHenry's objections to the continuance. Where, as here, the continuance was granted before the expiration of the statutory speedy trial time, the period of continuance was properly excludable under § 29-1207(4)(b), and defense counsel was not ineffective by failing to assert McHenry's right to a speedy trial or by failing to file a motion for discharge. See State v. Turner, 252 Neb. 620, 564 N.W.2d 231 (1997). We conclude that this claim is without merit.