Court Opinion

ID: 9773308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:41:51.90333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:51.920166
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
Appellant was convicted of felony theft on May 4, 1973, and his punishment was assessed at five (5) years. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation subject to certain conditions, including:
“(2) Commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or of the United States.”
On October 30, 1975 the State filed a motion to revoke probation alleging violations of probationary condition # 2. On May 28, 1976 the court conducted a hearing on the motion and revoked probation, finding that on October 13, 1975 the appellant had committed the burglary of a habitation and also on the same date had unlawfully operated an automobile without the owner’s consent.
On appeal appellant contends “The Court erred in considering State’s Motion to revoke Appellant’s probation because, as a matter of law, Appellant was denied a speedy hearing in said matter.”
The right of an accused in a criminal case to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth *39Amendment to the United States Constitution and is applicable to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967); Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 576, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970); McKinney v. State, 491 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). There is also a corresponding right independently set forth in the Texas Constitution. See Article I, § 10, State Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. See also Article 1.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
There can be no question that a probationer is entitled to a speedy hearing with regard to revocation proceedings. Ross v. State, 523 S.W.2d 402 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); McClure v. State, 496 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Cr. App. 1973); Hilts v. State, 476 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972).
It is true that Article 42.12, § 8(a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., as amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1243, ch. 467, eff. June 19, 1975, provides that after the filing of a motion to revoke probation the probationer, who has not been released on bail, may by motion cause the court to have him brought before the court within 20 days of filing of said motion for a revocation hearing. And it has been held that where the court does not comply with the terms of the statute after the filing of such motion, the motion to revoke will be dismissed. Ex parte Trillo, 540 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
While the use of provisions of Article 42.12, § 8(a), supra, is an effective way for a probationer (not on bail) to insure a speedy hearing on the revocation motion, the mere failure of a probationer (not on bail) to utilize this procedure does not answer the contention that a speedy trial has been denied. As will be pointed out, a defendant’s assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy trial is only one factor to be considered in determining whether the defendant has been deprived of a speedy trial. Thus while the appellant (not on bail) did not seek to use the provisions of Article 42.12, § 8(a), supra, this failure is only one factor to be considered in passing upon appellant’s contention.
A “balancing test” for the determination of the federally protected constitutional right to a speedy trial in which the conduct of the prosecution and the defendant is weighed was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). This “balancing test” has also been applied to the state protected constitutional right to a speedy trial or to a speedy hearing on revocation motions. Some factors that the court should consider in applying the “balancing test” are: (1) length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, supra; Pete v. State, 501 S.W.2d 683 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); McKinney v. State, supra. In Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 94 S.Ct. 188, 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973), it was made clear that none of these factors have “talismanic qualities” and, in particular, that a showing of prejudice is not sine qua non to demonstrating a denial of the right of speedy trial. See also Davison v. State, 510 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ross v. State, supra (footnote # 1).
As to the length of delay, it is observed that the revocation motion was filed on October 30, 1975. The hearing on said motion was conducted on May 28, 1976, indicating a delay of almost seven months.
As to the reason for delay, the record reflects that on December 1,1975 the cause was passed by agreement to December 11, 1975 for “pre trial” matters and to December 23,1975 for the revocation hearing. On December 18, 1975 appellant’s counsel filed a motion for “continuance” alleging appellant was in the hospital. The revocation hearing was then set for January 23, 1976. What transpired on that date is not reflected by the record. On March 23, 1976 the cause was passed by agreement to April 16, 1976. The record fails to reflect what occurred on that setting, but on May 21, 1976 the court set the hearing for May 28, 1976, at which time the hearing was conducted.
*40Thus the record is silent as to the reason for the delay except appellant’s hospitalization and the several agreements of counsel to pass the cause. The record does not support any deliberate effort by the prosecution to delay the revocation hearing. It cannot be said that the delay was such as to demand a per se determination of a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy revocation hearing. Haas v. State, 498 S.W.2d 206, 211 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The record fails to reflect any effort or attempt by the appellant to speed up the criminal process until the date of the revocation hearing when for the first time he orally moved to dismiss the revocation motion for lack of a speedy trial.
Of course, a failure to demand a speedy trial does not waive that right. As pointed out in Barker v. Wingo, supra, a defendant’s assertion of or failure to assert such right is only one of the factors to be considered in making an inquiry into whether there has been a deprivation of the right to a speedy trial. It does not appear in the instant case that the appellant made any diligent or repeated efforts to obtain a speedy trial. Dickey v. Florida, supra.
In determining prejudice to a defendant, we must consider the interest of a defendant, which the speedy trial right was designed to protect: (1) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety and- concern of the defendant; (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Appellant, however, has made no showing how he was prejudiced, if he was. Haas v. State, supra; McKinney v. State, supra.
Having considered the four factors mentioned in Barker v. Wingo, supra, and finding no other circumstances that are relevant, I conclude in applying the “balancing test” appellant was not denied his right to a speedy revocation hearing. See George v. State, 498 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); McCarty v. State, 498 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
For the reasons stated, I concur.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this concurrence.