Court Opinion

ID: 9678164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:13:15.403465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.994946
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated below, I dissent. I sometimes believe, based upon the case law, that a majority of the Court gives too little deference to the trial court’s discretion. E.g., Gonzales v. State, Nos. 10-03-00309-CR & 10-03-00312-CR, 2005 WL 428463, at *4, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 1501, at ⅝9-⅜12 (Tex.App.-Waco Feb. 23, 2005, no pet.) (Gray, C.J., concurring) (not designated for publication). Here, again based upon the case law, I believe that the majority gives too much.
I disavow, first, of course, as I often do, the majority opinion’s extravagantly unnecessary dicta. E.g., Villanueva v. State, 209 S.W.3d 239, 249-52 (Tex.App.-Waco no pet.) (Gray, C.J., dissenting). It does not require twenty-three pages to dispose of these cases, even though they are four, related cases. The majority’s discussion of the several states’ speedy-trial acts, (see slip op. at 4-8 (majority op.)), is particularly egregious: Texas does not have a speedy trial act.
Next, the majority correctly states, then disregards, the standard of review. “[W]e apply a bifurcated standard of review: an abuse of discretion standard for the factual components, and a de novo standard for the legal components.” (Op. at 119 (majority op.) (quoting Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tex.Crim.App.2002)).) For instance, the majority holds that “[t]he court did not abuse its discretion by hold*131ing the State responsible for the mistrial,” and that “the record supports the trial court’s ruling” on matters of law “so we ‘must uphold’ it.” (Id. at 126,127, 129,130 (quoting Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883, 889 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)).) Here, the facts are largely undisputed. We must uphold the trial court’s legal ruling on a speedy-trial motion only if the ruling is “correct under the applicable law.” Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 889 (citing State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). Among the factors to which, as a matter of law, we must hold strongly against the appellants, especially Manley, Brown, and Ratcliff, is the untimely assertion of the right to a speedy trial. See Kelly v. State, 163 S.W.3d 722, 727-29 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). “[F]ailure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” Barker at 532, 92 S.Ct. 2182.
The majority similarly fails to consider the weight that each factor in the analysis carries. The majority states the standard of review: “Different weights are assigned to the various reasons for the delay asserted by the State.” (Op. at 122 (majority op.) (citing Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 889)); see Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. A period of time may weigh “very heavily,” “more heavily,” “heavily,” “less heavily,” “moderately,” or only “lightly” either for or against a party. E.g., Barker at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182; Kelly, 163 S.W.3d at 729, 730; Shaw at 890; Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308, 312, 314 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Zamorano, 84 S.W.3d at 649, 651; Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 822; Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 706 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Chapman v. Evans, 744 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (orig. proceeding). The majority, however, considers all periods of time as carrying equal weight. For example, the majority holds that “twenty-one of the twenty-nine months can be attributed to the State” as to Lewis, “thirty-three of the thirty-four months can be attributed to the State” as to Brown, and “thirty-one of the thirty-four months can be attributed to the State” as to Manley, (at 127, 129 (majority op.).) Again, particularly as to the assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and particularly as to Manley, Brown, and Rat-cliff, the majority fails to give due weight to the failure to assert the right timely.
For the reasons above, I dissent.