Court Opinion

ID: 9353546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 01:47:35.471041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:06.340779
License: Public Domain

Rel: December 16, 2022

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

                 Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
                                _________________________

                                          CR-21-0374
                                   _________________________

                                     Raphiel Pier Quinnie

                                                      v.

                                         State of Alabama

                          Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court
                                    (CC-17-1890)

McCOOL, Judge.

        Raphiel Pier Quinnie appeals his conviction for unlawful possession

of a short-barreled shotgun, a violation of § 13A-11-63, Ala. Code 1975.

Quinnie was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for that conviction.

                                 Facts and Procedural History
CR-21-0374

     In May 2016, a Mobile County grand jury indicted Quinnie for

murder. Quinnie was arrested for the murder charge on July 12, 2016,

and it appears that he was in possession of a short-barreled shotgun at

that time (R. 21), which was not the murder weapon. In April 2017, a

Mobile County grand jury also indicted Quinnie for unlawful possession

of a short-barreled shotgun, and Quinnie was arraigned on that charge

on June 27, 2017.

     In January 2018, Quinnie was convicted of murder and, on March

1, 2018, was sentenced to life imprisonment. At the conclusion of the

sentencing hearing, Quinnie provided oral notice of appeal, and the State

requested    that   the   unlawful-possession-of-a-short-barreled-shotgun

charge "be moved to the administrative docket." (CR-17-0573, R. 364.)

Quinnie raised no objection to the State's request (id.), so the circuit court

granted the request and "transferred [that charge] to the administrative

docket pending appeal [of Quinnie's murder conviction]." (C. 22.) In

April 2019, this Court affirmed Quinnie's murder conviction, and the

Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review on July 12, 2019. For

all that appears in the record, Quinnie's unlawful-possession-of-a-short-

barreled-shotgun charge remained on the circuit court's administrative

                                      2
CR-21-0374

docket until May 2021, when the court sua sponte scheduled a status

conference regarding that charge.

     On August 24, 2021, Quinnie filed a motion to dismiss the unlawful-

possession-of-a-short-barreled-shotgun charge on the basis that the State

had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. See U.S. Const.,

Amend. VI.; and Ala. Const., Art. I, § 6. The State filed a response to

Quinnie's motion, arguing that the motion was due to be denied based on

an analysis of the four factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514

(1972). Quinnie then supplemented his motion with a brief in which he

also addressed the Barker factors, arguing that the factors weighed in

favor of dismissal. The circuit court held a hearing on Quinnie's motion

and, following that hearing, issued an order denying the motion "in light

of the Barker factors as applied to the facts of this case." (C. 50.)

     On February 8, 2022, Quinnie pleaded guilty to unlawful possession

of a short-barreled shotgun after reserving his right to appeal the circuit

court's denial of his motion to dismiss.

                                Discussion

     On appeal, Quinnie reasserts his claim that the State violated his

constitutional right to a speedy trial. We review this claim de novo

                                     3
CR-21-0374

because the relevant facts are undisputed and because the only question

to be decided is a question of law. Horton v. State, [Ms. CR-20-0502, Mar.

11, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2022).

                  " 'In determining whether a defendant has
           been denied his constitutional right to a speedy
           trial, we apply the test established by the United
           States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407
           U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972),
           in which the following four factors are considered:
           (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the
           delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his or her
           right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the
           defendant.

                 " 'In Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 263
           (Ala. 2005), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:

                       " ' " 'A single factor is not
                 necessarily determinative, because this
                 is a "balancing test, in which the
                 conduct of both the prosecution and the
                 defense are weighed." '      Ex parte
                 Clopton, 656 So. 2d [1243] at 1245
                 [(Ala. 1985)] (quoting Barker, 407 U.S.
                 at 530)." '

     "State v. Jones, 35 So. 3d 644, 646 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)."

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___.

                         I. Length of the Delay

     Under the first Barker factor, the threshold inquiry is whether the

length of the delay is "presumptively prejudicial," which, if it is,

                                    4
CR-21-0374

" 'triggers' an examination of the remaining three Barker factors."

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___. " '[A]s the term is used in this threshold

context, "presumptive prejudice" does not necessarily indicate a

statistical probability of prejudice; it simply marks the point at which

courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the Barker

enquiry.' " Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting Doggett v. United States,

505 U.S. 647, 652 n.1 (1992)).

                " ' "In Alabama, '[t]he length of delay is
           measured from the date of the indictment or the
           date of the issuance of an arrest warrant –
           whichever is earlier – to the date of the trial.'
           Roberson [v. State], 864 So. 2d [379,] 394 [(Ala.
           Crim. App. 2002)]." '

     "Wilson v. State, 329 So. 3d 71, 77 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)
     (quoting Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 263-64 (Ala. 2005)).
     In a case where the defendant pleads guilty, the 'trial' date is
     the date he or she pleads guilty. See Wilson, 329 So. 3d at 77;
     and Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 264 (Ala. 2005) (both
     calculating the length of the delay up to the date the
     defendant pleaded guilty)."

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___.

     In this case, Quinnie was arrested in July 2016 but was not indicted

until April 2017. Thus, we measure the delay from the date of Quinnie's

arrest to the date he pleaded guilty, i.e., from July 12, 2016, to February

                                    5
CR-21-0374

8, 2022, which is a delay of approximately 67 months.1          The State

concedes that this delay is sufficient to trigger an analysis of the

remaining Barker factors, and that concession is supported by Alabama

caselaw. See Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (holding that a delay of 54 months

was sufficient to trigger an analysis of the remaining Barker factors).

That fact also means that this factor weighs against the State in our

speedy-trial analysis; the degree to which it weighs against the State we

discuss below.

                         II. Reason for the Delay

           " ' "Barker recognizes three categories of reasons for
     delay: (1) deliberate delay, (2) negligent delay, and (3)
     justified delay. 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. 2182. Courts assign
     different weight to different reasons for delay. Deliberate
     delay is 'weighted heavily' against the State. 407 U.S. at 531,
     92 S. Ct. 2182. Deliberate delay includes an 'attempt to delay
     the trial in order to hamper the defense' or ' "to gain some
     tactical advantage over (defendants) or to harass them." ' 407
     U.S. at 531 & n.32, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (quoting United States v.

     1Both  Quinnie and the State contend that the length of the delay is
62 months because they incorrectly conclude that the delay ended on
September 28, 2021 – the date of the hearing on Quinnie's motion to
dismiss. As Quinnie notes, it is true that, in State v. Stovall, 947 So. 2d
1149, 1153 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), this Court held that the length of the
delay was measured to "the date the trial court conducted the hearing on
[the defendant's] motion to dismiss." However, in that case the circuit
court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, and, thus, when this
Court considered the State's appeal, there was no trial date to which the
delay could be measured.
                                    6
CR-21-0374

     Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468
     (1971)). Negligent delay is weighted less heavily against the
     State than is deliberate delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.
     Ct. 2182; Ex parte Carrell, 565 So. 2d [104,] 108 [(Ala. 1990)].
     Justified delay – which includes such occurrences as missing
     witnesses or delay for which the defendant is primarily
     responsible – is not weighted against the State. Barker, 407
     U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. 2182[.]" ' "

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting Wilson v. State, 329 So. 3d 71, 77-78

(Ala. Crim. App. 2020), quoting in turn Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259,

265 (Ala. 2005)).

     In this case, Quinnie argues that the State's delay in prosecuting

him was in part deliberate and in part negligent, but he also concedes

that some of the delay was "not specifically attributable to either party."

(Quinnie's brief, p. 17.) According to Quinnie, the delay can be separated

into four blocks of time, which he separates and categorizes as follows:

     1. The delay that occurred from the date of his arrest to the
        date of his arraignment was negligent delay by the State.

     2. The delay that occurred from the date of his arraignment
        to the date his murder trial concluded was "not specifically
        attributable to either party." According to Quinnie, this is
        so because both he and the State "were primarily focused
        during this time on preparing for and completing the trial
        and sentencing in the murder case." (Quinnie's brief, p.
        18.)

     3. The delay that occurred from the date his murder trial
        concluded, when the State requested that this case be

                                    7
CR-21-0374

        placed on the administrative docket, to the date the
        Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review of his
        murder conviction was deliberate delay by the State.

     4. The delay that occurred after the Alabama Supreme Court
        denied certiorari review of his murder conviction was
        negligent delay by the State.

     We first note that this Court has held that a period of delay " 'cannot

be charged against the [S]tate as needless delay' " when that period is

"spent in clearing up … other pending charges." Goodson v. State, 588

So. 2d 509, 511 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Kimberly v. State, 501

So. 2d 534, 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)). See also McGregor v. State, 394

S.W.3d 90, 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ("The fact that the defendant is

being prosecuted on other charges constitutes a valid reason for a delay

in bringing him to trial on the charged offense at issue."). Here, from the

date of Quinnie's arrest through March 1, 2018, the State was actively

prosecuting Quinnie for the more serious and unrelated charge of

murder. Thus, none of that delay – a delay of approximately 19 and one-

half months – is held against the State.

     Next, we disagree with Quinnie's allegation that the State

deliberately delayed this case during the time that the appeal of his

murder conviction was pending, i.e., from March 1, 2018, to July 12, 2019.

                                    8
CR-21-0374

It is true, as Quinnie notes, that this delay occurred as a result of the

State's "volitional act" of requesting that the unlawful-possession-of-a-

short-barreled-shotgun charge      be placed on the circuit        court's

administrative docket. (Quinnie's brief, p. 18.) However, there is no

indication, nor does Quinnie allege, that the State made that request for

the purpose of "attempt[ing] to delay the trial in order to hamper the

defense" or "to gain some tactical advantage over [Quinnie] or to harass

[him]." Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (citations omitted). To the contrary,

Quinnie conceded at the speedy-trial hearing that the appeal of his

murder conviction was "what prompted [the unlawful-possession-of-a-

short-barreled-shotgun charge] to go to the admin[istrative] docket" (R.

4), and Quinnie did not object to moving that charge to the administrative

docket. Thus, any delay attributable to the State from March 1, 2018, to

July 12, 2019 – a delay of a little more than 16 months – was negligent

delay. See State v. Ramirez, 184 So. 3d 1053, 1057 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)

(holding that the State had negligently delayed the defendant's trial

when it "failed to proceed with the prosecution while the case remained

on the circuit court's administrative docket").

                                    9
CR-21-0374

     According to Quinnie, the remaining delay of 31 months, which

occurred from July 12, 2019, to February 8, 2022, was also attributable

to the State's negligence. However, as the State notes, "jury trials [in

Alabama] were suspended from March 13, 2020, to September 14, 2020,"

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ex parte Brown, [Ms. 1210172, June 17,

2022] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2022). Thus, the State was unable to bring

Quinnie to trial during that six-month period, and, as a result, those six

months are not held against the State. See State v. Paige, 977 N.W.2d

829, 838 (Minn. 2022) (holding that "trial delays due to the statewide

orders issued in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic do not weigh

against the State"); People v. Mayfield, 186 N.E.3d 571, 575 (Ill. Ct. App.

2021) (holding that the Illinois Supreme Court's orders suspending jury

trials as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic "tolled the speedy-trial

term"); Ali v. Commonwealth, 872 S.E.2d 662, 676 (Va. Ct. App. 2022)

(holding that the trial court "did not err by declining to weigh the

[COVID-19] pandemic-related delay in the appellant's favor" because

"the delay due to the pandemic was valid, unavoidable, and outside the

Commonwealth's control"); State ex rel. Porter v. Farrell, 245 W. Va. 272,

283, 858 S.E.2d 897, 908 (2021) (holding that the time "during which a

                                    10
CR-21-0374

judicial emergency has been declared in response to the COVID-19 global

pandemic" is not held against the State in a speedy-trial analysis);

Labbee v. State, 362 Ga. App. 558, 567, 869 S.E.2d 520, 530 (2022)

(holding that the trial court did not err "in finding that the delay in [the

defendant's] trial resulting from the [COVID-19] pandemic was a neutral

factor that should not be weighed negatively against the State" and

noting that "several other courts that have considered the delay caused

by the pandemic in the context of speedy trial claims … have declined to

weigh the delay against the government"); and Ward v. State, 346 So. 3d

868, 871-72 (Miss. 2022) (holding that "delays caused by the COVID-19

pandemic are neutral" in a speedy-trial analysis).

     After excluding the 6 months during which jury trials were

suspended in Alabama, what is left of the delay that occurred from July

12, 2019, to February 8, 2022, is a period of 25 months. In neither its

arguments at the speedy-trial hearing nor in its brief to this Court has

the State offered an explanation for its failure to bring Quinnie to trial

during those 25 months, and the State conceded below that there had

been some negligent delay during the time that this case was on the

                                    11
CR-21-0374

circuit court's administrative docket. (C. 40-41; R. 7.) Thus, we attribute

that 25-month delay to the State's negligence.

     In short, this case involves no deliberate delay by the State, and

only approximately 41 months of the 67-month delay can be attributed to

the State's negligence. Although a negligent delay of 41 months means

that the first and second Barker factors weigh against the State, they do

not weigh heavily against the State. See Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ ("The

fact that the State negligently delayed [the defendant's] case for 43

months weighs against the State, but it 'does not weigh as heavily as it

would have had the delay been found to be ... intentional.' " (quoting State

v. White, 962 So. 2d 897, 902 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006))); and United States

v. Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d 225, 232 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that the

first and second Barker factors did not weigh heavily against the State

in a case involving a negligent delay of 42 months).2

     2In  his reply brief, Quinnie argues that this Court should attribute
all of the 31-month delay that occurred from July 12, 2019, to February
8, 2022, to the State's negligence. This is so, Quinnie argues, because
there is nothing in the record to indicate that jury trials were suspended
during part of that time. However, Alabama's intermediate appellate
courts may take judicial notice of orders issued by the Alabama Supreme
Court. Kettler v. Fryer, 480 So. 2d 1229, 1231 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
Furthermore, even if we attributed all of this 31-month delay to the
State's negligence, the result would be that an additional 6 months would
                                    12
CR-21-0374

         III. Quinnie's Assertion of His Right to a Speedy Trial

           " ' "An accused does not waive the right to a speedy trial
     simply by failing to assert it. Barker, 407 U.S. at 528, 92, 92
     S. Ct. 2182. Even so, courts applying the Barker factors are
     to consider in the weighing process whether and when the
     accused asserts the right to a speedy trial, 407 U.S. at 528-29,
     92 S. Ct. 2182[.]" ' "

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting Wilson, 329 So. 3d at 79), quoting in

turn Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 265-66).

     In this case, it is undisputed that Quinnie first asserted his right to

a speedy trial on August 24, 2021 – more than five years after he was

arrested. See Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (noting that "the right to a speedy

trial attaches on either the date the indictment is returned or the date

the defendant is arrested, whichever is earlier" (emphasis omitted)).

And, even if we ignore the time that Quinnie was being prosecuted for

murder, Quinnie still waited more than three years after his murder trial

concluded to assert that right. Quinnie's failure to assert his right sooner

" ' "tends to suggest that he … acquiesced in the delays," ' " Wilson, 329

So. 3d at 79 (quoting Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 266), quoting in turn

be thus attributed to the State. Those additional six months would not
change our conclusion that, although the first and second Barker factors
weigh against the State, they do not weigh heavily against the State.

                                    13
CR-21-0374

Benefield v. State, 726 So. 2d 286, 291 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)), which

means that the third Barker factor weighs against him, and weighs

heavily, in our speedy-trial analysis. As the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has explained: " 'The Speedy Trial

Clause primarily protects those who assert their rights, not those who

acquiesce in the delay,' " and "[a]cquiescence in delay causes the third

[Barker] factor … '[to] be weighed heavily against [the defendant].' "

United States v. Lamar, 562 F. App'x 802, 806 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting,

respectively, United States v. Aguirre, 994 F.2d 1454, 1457 (9th Cir.

1993)), and Doggett, 505 U.S. at 653). See also Arnett v. State, 551 So.

2d 1158, 1160 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (holding that "the fact that [the

defendant] waited over one year to assert his [speedy-trial] rights

weigh[ed] heavily against him").

     We acknowledge Quinnie's argument that the third Barker factor

"is neutral" and should "not … be weighed against either party."

(Quinnie's brief, p. 25.) However, the only support Quinnie provides for

that argument is that he "was not responsible for missing any court

dates," that he "never requested a continuance," and that he "assert[ed]

his right to a speedy trial … prior to any trial setting." (Id. at 24.) Those

                                     14
CR-21-0374

contentions might be true, but none of them provide an explanation for

why Quinnie could not have asserted his right to a speedy trial at an

earlier date.

                         IV. Prejudice to Quinnie

     In our analysis of the fourth Barker factor, we must first determine

whether prejudice to Quinnie is to be presumed from the State's negligent

delay or whether he has the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice.

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___. Regarding the circumstances that will support

a finding of presumed prejudice in cases involving negligent delay, this

Court has stated:

     " ' " '[N]egligent delay may be so lengthy – or the first three
     Barker factors may weigh so heavily in the accused's favor –
     that the accused becomes entitled to a finding of presumed
     prejudice.' " ' Wilson [v. State], 329 So. 3d [71,] 80 [(Ala. Crim.
     App. 2020)] (quoting [State v.] Pylant, 214 So. 3d [392,] 397-
     98 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2016)], quoting in turn Ex parte Walker,
     928 So. 2d [259,] 268 [(Ala. 2005)]). Although there is no
     ' "bright-line rule for the length of delay caused by
     governmental negligence that will warrant a finding of
     presumed prejudice," ' the Alabama Supreme Court has noted
     that federal courts generally do not presume prejudice under
     the fourth Barker factor unless the delay is at least five years.
     [State v.] Jones, 35 So. 3d [644,] 656 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2009)]
     (quoting Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 270)."

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (footnote omitted).

                                     15
CR-21-0374

     In this case, the State negligently delayed prosecuting Quinnie for

approximately 41 months, which is less than the five-year threshold at

which federal courts will sometimes presume prejudice. In addition, the

first three Barker factors do not weigh heavily in Quinnie's favor; in fact,

the third Barker factor – the assertion of his right to a speedy trial –

weighs heavily against Quinnie.      Thus, Quinnie is not entitled to a

presumption of prejudice. See Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (holding that the

defendant was not entitled to a presumption of prejudice because the

negligent delay of 43 months was less than five years and because the

first three Barker factors did not weigh heavily in his favor). Because we

do not presume prejudice in this case, Quinnie has the burden of

demonstrating that he suffered some actual prejudice from the delay. See

Horton, ___ So. 3d at ___ (holding that, because the defendant was not

entitled to a presumption of prejudice, he "had the burden of

demonstrating actual prejudice"); and State v. Crandle, [Ms. CR-20-0148,

May 6, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2022) (same). However,

Quinnie has made no attempt on appeal to demonstrate that he suffered

any actual prejudice from the delay, choosing instead to place all of his

proverbial eggs into the presumed-prejudice basket. (Quinnie's brief, pp.

                                    16
CR-21-0374

25-28.) Accordingly, because Quinnie is not entitled to a presumption of

prejudice and has not demonstrated that he suffered any actual

prejudice, the fourth Barker factor weighs against him in our speedy-trial

analysis. 3

                                   Conclusion

      In this case, the State negligently delayed prosecuting Quinnie for

approximately 41 months, so the first and second Barker factors weigh

against the State but do not weigh heavily against it. However, the third

      3We   recognize that Quinnie made the following argument in the
brief he filed in the circuit court:

      "Quinnie should not have to show any actual, specific
      prejudice to him. However, he can – as an inmate in the
      Department of Corrections, he is excluded from any programs
      offered if he has pending charges. Therefore, he would not be
      allowed to take any substance abuse programs, any job
      training or educational classes, anything at all to better
      himself while incarcerated. Additionally, Quinnie's eligibility
      for good time, incentive time, and parole are all affected by
      having pending charges. These detriments, in addition to the
      damage to his defense in this case for all the typical reasons
      when there has been a delay (faded memory, lost witnesses,
      etc.), are actual, specific prejudice he has suffered due to the
      State failing to timely prosecute this case."

(C. 48.) However, Quinnie has not raised these arguments on appeal and
has thus waived them. Douglas v. Roper, [Ms. 1200503, June 24, 2022]
___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2022).
                                    17
CR-21-0374

Barker factor weighs heavily against Quinnie because he acquiesced in

the delay for more than three years, and the fourth Barker factor weighs

against him because he is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice and

he has made no attempt to demonstrate that he suffered any actual

prejudice. " 'Obviously, in this balancing [of the Barker factors], the less

prejudice [an accused] experiences, the less likely it is that a denial of a

speedy trial right will be found.' " State v. Jones, 35 So. 3d 644, 659 (Ala.

Crim. App. 2009) (quoting Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d at 2300). Thus,

after careful consideration of the Barker factors, we hold that Quinnie's

right to a speedy trial was not violated. Accordingly, the judgment of the

circuit court is affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.

     Kellum, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur.          Windom, P.J., recuses

herself.

                                     18