Opinion ID: 1126392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether jones was denied his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial

Text: ¶ 16. For the first time upon appeal, Jones asserts that he was denied both his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. In his brief, Jones provides the following chronology: Date Event Days of Delay 11/20/95 Arraignment 01/22/96-03/19/96 Defense Continuance 56 05/28/96-07/22/96 Defense Continuance 56 07/22/96-09/30/96 Defense Continuance 70 05/19/97-08/11/97 Defense Continuance 84 07/07/98 Trial 975 Total days attributable to defense continuances 266 Total days of non-defense delay 709 Total days of delay in excess of statutory 270 days 339 However, the only information regarding continuances contained within the record is provided on the docket sheet as follows: 05/09/96 continued 06/26/96 continued 09/09/96 continued 11/18/96 continued 04/01/97 continued 05/21/97 continued 09/12/97 continued The record does not reveal the length of each continuance nor who requested the continuance. Additionally, the dates provided on the docket sheet do not match the dates asserted by Jones in his brief. Likewise, there are no motions requesting continuances nor any orders of continuance contained within the record. Simply put, there is not enough information in the record before this Court to adequately address this issue. ¶ 17. This Court has repeatedly held that [we] will not consider matters which are outside the record and must confine [ourselves] to what actually does appear in the record. Medina v. State, 688 So.2d 727, 732 (Miss.1996) (citing Robinson v. State, 662 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Miss. 1995). We can not decide an issue based on assertions in the briefs alone; rather, issues must be proven by the record. Medina v. State, 688 So.2d at 732. Furthermore, Jones has failed to show any prejudice which might have resulted from the delay. See Walton v. State, 678 So.2d 645, 650 (Miss.1996). Without such information, we are unable to find a constitutional or statutory violation of the right to a speedy trial. Therefore, we decline to address this issue.