Court Opinion

ID: 9545559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:15:39.825054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:07.692549
License: Public Domain

VOLLACK, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of the information on the grounds that the defendant, Paul Chavez, was denied his constitutional right to speedy trial.
I.
Whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial under the United States or Colorado constitutions is determined by applying a four-factor ad hoc balancing test. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (U.S. Const. amend. VI); People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo.1981) (Colo. Const. art. II, § 16). In weighing these factors, the defendant has the burden of proving his constitutional right to speedy trial was denied. Small, 631 P.2d at 154. The four factors are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192; Small, 631 P.2d at 154. None of the four factors is necessary or *379sufficient by itself to show that the right to speedy trial was denied. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. at 2193; Small, 631 P.2d at 154. The determination is made by considering all the factors together with any other relevant circumstances. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. at 2193; Small, 631 P.2d at 154.
The constitutional right to speedy trial is not based on mere speed. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); Small, 631 P.2d at 154. The criminal proceedings must be handled in a manner consistent with the court’s business. Barker, 407 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. at 2187; Marion, 404 U.S. at 313, 92 S.Ct. at 459; Small, 631 P.2d at 154; People v. Mayes, 178 Colo. 429, 432, 498 P.2d 1123, 1125 (1972). A delay consistent with the constitutional right to speedy trial is not a set period of time, as is the case where one is dealing with the time requirements set out in statutes and court rules. Small, 631 P.2d at 154. See § 18-1-405, 8B C.R.S. (1986 & 1988 Supp.); Crim.P. 48(b).
II.
The application of the balancing test of Barker, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, is at best a difficult task. The length of delay in this case, as found by the trial court, started at the time the Information was filed on September 22, 1986. The arraignment was on December 3, 1987. Trial was set for March 23, 1988, without objection by the defendant. On March 21, 1988, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. The threshold test of Barker is whether the delay is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192. If so, the other factors of the balancing test must be addressed. Id. Although an eighteen-month delay is extensive, it is not decisive when considered with other circumstances of the case. I therefore must consider and balance the reason for the delay, assertion of right, and prejudice to the defendant, together with other relevant circumstances. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 2187.
The court, on September 24, 1986, granted the defendant thirty days to file motions, and set aside half of October 22, 1986, to hear the motions. The defendant filed several motions on October 21, 1986, and the motions hearing was continued to November 24, 1986. On that date, the defendant advised the court that no plea agreement was possible and the motions hearing was continued to January 5, 1987. Defendant filed additional motions, including one on January 5, 1987. The court ruled on the motions and set May 5, 1987, for video depositions of the two alleged victims, K.M. and W.B. The video depositions were continued until January 14, 1988, due to K.M.’s mother’s heart-bypass surgery. After the arraignment on December 3, 1987, defendant continued to file motions up until March 21, 1988, when he filed a Motion to Dismiss. The record reflects that many of the delays were at the defendant’s request. The record shows that the defendant did not object to the pace of the proceeding or assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial until March 21, 1988. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the trial court found that the reasons for the delays did not involve bad faith.
A criminal defendant has the “responsibility to assert his right to a speedy trial.” Small, 631 P.2d at 155; see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 528, 92 S.Ct. at 2191. Chavez first asserted his constitutional right to a speedy trial on March 21, 1988, when he filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court. This motion was filed two days before the date set for trial. Not once did Chavez object to any motion for continuance made by the prosecution or the trial court. In fact, during this period Chavez was responsible for many of the delays— Chavez requested and received a continuance as to the date set for the preliminary hearing and Chavez filed motions for additional discovery in November of 1986, January of 1987, and December 0f 1937. By mutual agreement of counsel, the trial date was reset for March 23, 1988. Chavez never requested that he be arraigned, although he had a right to arraignment within a reasonable time after being charged. See People v. Bost, 770 P.2d 1209, 1217 (Colo.1989) (defendant never attempted to contact the Colorado authorities until after *380the detainer was filed); People v. Velasquez, 641 P.2d 943, 950 (Colo.1982) (defendant did not seek arraignment — therefore, the six-month statutory speedy trial period did not begin to run); Saiz v. District Court, 189 Colo. 555, 558, 542 P.2d 1293, 1295 (1975) (“it was incumbent upon defense counsel to enter a plea on the murder charge” if he intended to take advantage of the limitative period). Chavez’s conduct prior to March 21, 1988, does not indicate any desire on his part to proceed to trial at a rate faster than the case was progressing. Chavez’s delay in asserting his constitutional speedy trial right is significant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193; Small, 631 P.2d at 156; People v. Buggs, 186 Colo. 13, 525 P.2d 421 (1974) (no violation of constitutional right to speedy trial where defendant was arraigned in open court and acquiesced to date set for trial).
Whether the defendant has been prejudiced must be balanced with the other relevant circumstances of this case to determine if in fact there was a violation of his constitutional speedy trial rights. A showing of prejudice, although not independently necessary to a finding of speedy trial deprivation, Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 26, 94 S.Ct. 188, 189, 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973), relates to the fundamental purposes of the speedy trial right. In this regard the United States Supreme Court has identified three interests that the speedy trial right was designed to protect: “(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193 (quoted in People v. Bost, 770 P.2d 1209, 1217 (Colo.1989)). Here the defendant was on summons and was not incarcerated during the period of delay. His attorney, without objection, contributed to and participated in the delays. The death of the witness Mr. Walsh was the defendant’s sole concern that his case might be impaired and precipitated the filing of the Motion to Dismiss on March 21, approximately three months after Walsh’s death.
Walsh’s testimony was to be used to impeach K.M.’s testimony at trial. The prejudice, if any, to the defendant was nullified by the prosecution’s stipulating that Mr. Walsh’s written statement could be admitted into evidence and considered by the jury without objection.
Based on the above, I conclude that the record does not support the conclusion that the defendant sustained his burden of proof that his constitutional right to speedy trial was violated.
I respectfully dissent.