Court Opinion

ID: 9729240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:29:48.357929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:56.351796
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge,
concurring in part.
I concur with the majority that an immediate hearing is necessary concerning Tracy McKee. I differ concerning the reason for the hearing and, in part, the focus of the hearing.
Once represented by an attorney, a party cannot independently pursue a separate strategy with separate court filings. See State ex rel. Wolfrum v. Wiesman, 225 S.W.3d 409, 412 (Mo. banc 2007); State v. Williams, 34 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Mo.App.2001). The majority creates an exception to this rule concerning an individual’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Such an exception, even in this important and limited circumstance, threatens confusion and gamesmanship in our criminal procedure.
While I would not recognize Mr. McKee’s written communications to the court as “filings” that invoke procedural and constitutional rights, they are evidence that indicate the attorney-client relationship has failed, jeopardizing Mr. McKee’s right to adequate representation and, in turn, his right to a speedy and fair trial. Mr. McKee has been incarcerated for over 17 months and has written to the court in one form or another on six separate occasions complaining of delay. I would hold that when presented with this evidence, the trial court is obligated to immediately *733investigate and, if necessary, remedy the situation.