Court Opinion

ID: 9908125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 19:06:41.005117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:51.067406
License: Public Domain

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the
     Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is
     assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23-
     112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain
     deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.

 1         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

 2   Opinion Number: __________________

 3   Filing Date: December 7, 2023

 4   NO. S-1-SC-37879

 5   STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

 6         Plaintiff-Petitioner,

 7   v.

 8   JEREMIAH JOHN GURULE,

 9         Defendant-Respondent.

10   ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
11   Christina P. Argyres, District Judge

12   Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
13   Emily C. Tyson-Jorgenson, Assistant Attorney General
14   Santa Fe, NM

15   for Petitioner

16   Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
17   Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender
18   Santa Fe, NM

19   for Respondent
 1                                         OPINION

 2   THOMSON, Justice.

 3   {1}   Defendant stood accused of killing his girlfriend by repeatedly stabbing her.

 4   Defendant was tried, and the jury found him guilty of second degree murder, a

 5   second degree felony, and tampering with evidence, a third degree felony. See

 6   NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(B) (1994); NMSA 1978, § 30-22-5(B)(1) (2003). While he

 7   awaited trial, Defendant remained in custody as competency questions were

 8   resolved. He was isolated for much of that time due to his violence toward staff and

 9   the other inmates. On the eve of trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for

10   violation of his speedy trial rights. After a thorough examination of the procedural

11   timeline, the district court denied his motion. The Court of Appeals, in a split

12   decision, reversed Defendant’s convictions. State v. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem.

13   op. ¶¶ 1, 33 (N.M. Ct. App. July 31, 2019) (nonprecedential). The Court reexamined

14   the trial court’s findings and conclusions and determined that Defendant’s speedy

15   trial rights were violated because of the length of the delay, reasons for the delay,

16   and the “extreme prejudice” to Defendant. Id. ¶ 30. We granted certiorari.

17   {2}   In accordance with the required standard of review, we defer to the district

18   court’s findings regarding Defendant’s lack of showing of particularized prejudice,

19   his failure to assert the right to a speedy trial in a meaningful way, and the extent to
 1   which “Defendant was engaged in gamesmanship.” In doing so, we affirm that

 2   delays attributable to ascertaining a defendant’s competence to stand trial “are

 3   chargeable to the defendant and must be excluded from any speedy trial analysis.”

 4   State v. Mendoza, 1989-NMSC-032, ¶¶ 8-10, 108 N.M. 446, 774 P.2d 440. For those

 5   reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals, affirm the district court’s denial of

 6   Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remand to the Court of Appeals. 1

 7   I.    SIXTH AMENDMENT: RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

 8   {3}   The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all

 9   criminal prosecutions, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

10   trial.”2 As we have recognized, the speedy trial right “escapes precise definition.”

11   State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387. Rather, it is

           1
            Defendant raised five arguments on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The
     Court of Appeals reversed the district court on speedy trial grounds and therefore
     did not address Defendant’s other arguments. We remand for the Court of Appeals
     to address the remaining arguments.
           2
            Defendant does not clarify whether his speedy trial claim is brought under
     the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 14 of
     the New Mexico Constitution. He does analyze the Barker factors, which arise from
     the United States Supreme Court case Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). New
     Mexico adopted the Barker factor analysis in Zurla v. State, 1990-NMSC-011, 109
     N.M. 640, 789 P.2d 588.

                                              2
 1   “amorphous, slippery, and necessarily relative.” Id. (text only)3 (citation omitted).

 2   “Therefore, the substance of the speedy trial right is defined only through an analysis

 3   of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.” Id.

 4   {4}   The first step in determining whether there has been a speedy trial violation is

 5   to divide the overall trial delay into discrete periods to allow for manageable units

 6   of analysis. See generally id. ¶¶ 13-14; State v. Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 4-6,

 7   406 P.3d 505. We then attribute each of those units of delay to the fault of the state

 8   or the defendant. See, e.g., id. ¶ 18. There are circumstances where a delay cannot

 9   be attributed to either party, and those delays are weighed neutrally. See id. The

10   district court entered specific findings relating to Defendant’s claim of denial of his

11   speedy trial rights. They are summarized in relevant part as follows.

12   A.    Procedural Timeline

13   {5}   In April 2010, Defendant was arrested for murder and tampering with

14   evidence. Defendant spent the duration of the case from indictment to trial, a period

15   of approximately sixty-nine months, in custody.

16   {6}   The State entered its appearance about one month after the arrest. Defense

           3
             The “text only” parenthetical as used herein indicates the omission of all of
     the following—internal quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets—that are present in
     the quoted source, leaving the quoted text itself otherwise unchanged.

                                               3
 1   counsel did the same two weeks later and simultaneously filed a speedy trial demand.

 2   From June 1, 2010, until October 21, 2010, both parties filed various pretrial motions

 3   as the case proceeded toward trial. On October 21, 2010, at Defendant’s request, the

 4   trial judge filed an order to stay all proceedings to allow for a determination of

 5   Defendant’s competence. Following entry of the order, Defendant filed a notice of

 6   the defense of insanity. Defendant also requested an order to show cause because of

 7   the delay in his transfer to the New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute (NMBHI).

 8   He was eventually transported to NMBHI, and in August 2011, NMBHI found

 9   Defendant competent to stand trial. Defendant objected and indicated he would hire

10   an expert to contest the finding of his competence and that the new evaluation would

11   take two months. A competency hearing was then set for October 2011, but

12   Defendant requested a continuance of the proceeding because defense counsel was

13   out of state. The hearing was reset for December 6, 2011 (first reset), and for

14   unknown reasons, that hearing was cancelled.

15   {7}   Over the course of approximately the next nineteen months, Defendant’s

16   competency hearing was reset again, four more times. After the December 6, 2011,

17   hearing was cancelled, the hearing was reset for July 24, 2012 (second reset). Then,

18   on July 2, 2012, the State sought a new competency evaluation at the

19   recommendation of the original evaluating physician “due to the [year-long] delay

                                               4
 1   since the original evaluation.” The district court agreed, ordered an updated

 2   competency evaluation at NMBHI, and continued the competency hearing.

 3   Defendant was transported to NMBHI on September 18, 2012, and the competency

 4   hearing was reset for January 28, 2013 (third reset). Two weeks before the hearing,

 5   the State filed a motion requiring disclosure of Defendant’s health information.

 6   Defendant acknowledged that he had not provided the necessary documentation, and

 7   the State was compelled to file a stipulated motion to continue. This resulted in a

 8   resetting of the competency hearing to May 22, 2013 (fourth reset). On the scheduled

 9   date of the May competency hearing, NMBHI filed a written objection to the

10   subpoenas, and as a result the competency hearing was pushed to June 26, 2013 (fifth

11   reset). At the June hearing, the court found Defendant competent and set a jury trial

12   for five months later.

13   {8}   Defendant’s trial date was reset four times over the next thirty-one and one

14   half months following several discovery disputes, defense motions or stipulations to

15   continue, and other procedural delays. On November 13, 2013, the State filed a

16   stipulated motion to continue in order to pursue plea options. The trial was reset for

17   July 7, 2014, (first trial reset) followed by additional discovery motions, which

18   resulted in the State’s motion to continue to resolve the issues. Due to discovery

19   disputes from both parties, the court reset the trial for November 17, 2014 (second

                                               5
 1   trial reset). On the eve of trial, Defendant filed a motion to continue the November

 2   17 setting, stating that his expert needed time to evaluate Defendant’s state of mind.

 3   Speedy trial issues were raised, and the parties agreed that the delay would count

 4   against Defendant. The trial was reset for February 2, 2015 (third trial reset), but a

 5   month after a new scheduling order was issued, the case was reassigned to a different

 6   judge, who reset the trial on a docket beginning January 25, 2016 (fourth trial reset).

 7   After the latest reset, both the State and the defense moved the matter toward trial

 8   by filing several motions, including motions to suppress and motions to exclude.

 9   {9}    As trial approached, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on violation

10   of his speedy trial right. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s

11   motion on January 21, 2016, where Defendant submitted an affidavit describing the

12   prejudice he experienced in segregation. In addition, a correctional officer testified

13   about Defendant’s violent behavior while incarcerated and the need to place

14   Defendant in solitary confinement.

15   {10}   Trial began on February 8, 2016. After a seven-day trial, Defendant was

16   convicted of second degree murder and tampering with evidence. Defendant

17   appealed based on violation of his speedy trial right, and the Court of Appeals

18   reversed. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 1. With this understanding of the

19   procedural history, we now summarize how each court has analyzed Defendant’s

                                                6
 1   speedy trial motion, beginning with the district court.

 2   B.     The District Court’s Disposition of the Speedy Trial Motion

 3   {11}   In order to decide whether a defendant’s speedy trial right was violated, courts

 4   weigh four factors relating to the delay: “Length of delay, the reason for the delay,

 5   the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Barker, 407

 6   U.S. at 530 (the Barker factors). None of these factors are dispositive, and no single

 7   factor alone is necessary or sufficient. See id. at 533.

 8   {12}   The first factor is “a triggering mechanism,” which starts an “inquiry into the

 9   other factors that go into the balance.” Id. at 530. Any delay longer than eighteen

10   months in a complex case such as this one is presumptively prejudicial and triggers

11   an analysis of the other Barker factors. State v. Spearman, 2012-NMSC-023, ¶ 21,

12   283 P.3d 272. In this case, because fifty-one months had passed since the triggering

13   date, the district court found that “the delay necessitates analysis of the other Barker

14   factors.”

15   {13}   The district court next divided the total delay into specific periods and

16   assigned responsibility for each period. It concluded that thirty-three months of the

17   delay weighed against the State, twenty months weighed neutrally, and sixteen

18   months weighed against Defendant. The district court noted that the State was

19   responsible for most of the periods of delay but found that the delays did not weigh

                                                7
 1   heavily against the State because the delays were unintentional and Defendant

 2   stipulated to many of the continuances that the State requested. The district court

 3   also commented that it appeared “to some extent Defendant was engaged in

 4   gamesmanship” because his speedy trial motion asked that several of the stipulated

 5   delays be held against the State. These delays included the motion to continue the

 6   October 11, 2011, hearing; the motion to send defendant for a second evaluation; the

 7   January 22, 2013, motion to continue the January 28, 2013, competency hearing; the

 8   November 13, 2013, motion to continue for plea negotiations; and the June 20, 2014,

 9   request to resolve discovery issues. In addition to these stipulated continuances,

10   Defendant requested his own continuances, including the first hearing to evaluate

11   Defendant’s competency and the motion to continue the November 17, 2014, trial

12   setting.

13   {14}   Next, the district court looked at Defendant’s assertion of the speedy trial

14   right. While the district court found that Defendant asserted his speedy trial right

15   with each entry of appearance, the court concluded that these assertions were made

16   as a matter of course rather than as a strong assertion of the right. In addition, the

17   court found that Defendant moved to dismiss based on speedy trial only on the eve

18   of trial and therefore gave the motion little weight.

19   {15}   Finally, the district court evaluated whether Defendant suffered any

                                                8
 1   particularized prejudice. The court reasoned that, although Defendant was

 2   incarcerated both during and while awaiting trial, he still needed to show that

 3   particularized prejudice incurred from the delay. Defendant claimed he suffered

 4   particularized prejudice because of anxiety he developed while he was segregated

 5   from the other inmates. The district court rejected this claim, concluding that the

 6   detention center made efforts to put him in the general population, but that each time

 7   a transfer was initiated, Defendant’s own violent actions prevented the transfer. This

 8   resulted in continued placement in the segregated unit. The district court pointed to

 9   testimony by staff members at the jail that administration attempted to move

10   Defendant into the general population, but it acknowledged that Defendant’s

11   behavior sabotaged those efforts. The district court also considered whether

12   Defendant’s defense was impaired by the delay. The district court did not find

13   prejudice to the defense because, although Defendant alleged that some of his

14   witnesses were no longer available when the trial dates were changed, he did not

15   assert that the witnesses were material or show how those witnesses would have

16   helped his defense.

17   {16}   Considering all of these factors, the district court concluded that although the

18   length of the delay weighed heavily against the State, the reasons for delay did not

19   weigh heavily against the State. In addition, the district court gave minimal weight

                                                9
 1   to Defendant’s assertion of the speedy trial right, as well as Defendant’s claim of

 2   particularized prejudice. Therefore, the district court found no constitutional

 3   violation of Defendant’s speedy trial right. We turn next to the Court of Appeals’

 4   basis for reversing the district court on speedy trial grounds.

 5   C.     Court of Appeals’ Review of the District Court’s Decision on the Speedy
 6          Trial Motion

 7   {17}   Defendant appealed the district court’s decision to the Court of Appeals,

 8   which reweighed the Barker factors de novo. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶

 9   3, 30. The Court of Appeals agreed that the case was complex and that the eighteen-

10   month threshold was the appropriate trigger for analysis of the rest of the speedy

11   trial factors. Id. ¶ 4. It also agreed that a “delay of approximately seventy months”

12   weighs heavily against the State. Id. ¶ 5. Weighing the reasons for delay, the Court

13   of Appeals concluded that thirty-seven months weighed against the State, twenty

14   months weighed neutrally, and thirteen months weighed against Defendant. Id. ¶ 18.

15   Regarding Defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, the Court of Appeals

16   agreed with the district court’s conclusion that Defendant’s assertions were mostly

17   either pro forma or made on the eve of trial and therefore weighed “only slightly in

18   Defendant’s favor.” Id. ¶ 21.

19   {18}   The Court of Appeals further considered prejudice to Defendant. While the

20   district court found no particularized prejudice, the Court of Appeals held there was

                                               10
 1   “extreme prejudice” to Defendant, acknowledging that the majority of the delay was

 2   administrative or procedural and not intentional but weighing the reasons for the

 3   delay heavily against the State. Id. ¶¶ 18, 29. After weighing the four factors, the

 4   Court of Appeals concluded that Defendant’s right to speedy trial was violated,

 5   reversed the judgement and sentence, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the

 6   charges. Id. ¶¶ 30-31.

 7   {19}   We granted the State’s petition for writ of certiorari. We disagree with the

 8   Court of Appeals’ decision to weigh the reasons for delay heavily against the State.4

 9   Id. ¶ 30. Instead, we weigh the reasons for delay in large part against Defendant

10   because much of the delay was the result of the multiple considerations of

11   Defendant’s competence to stand trial. The Court of Appeals erred in weighing that

12   delay against the State. Finally, in light of Defendant’s behavior while in

13   confinement and because he did not show particularized prejudice, we disagree that

14   Defendant suffered extreme prejudice.

            The Court of Appeals correctly calculated and weighed some portions of the
            4

     delay during Defendant’s pretrial incarceration. We do not see a need to recite those.
     Instead, this opinion will only discuss, in detail, the periods of delay for which this
     Court’s weighing differs from the Court of Appeals’ weighing. The Appendix
     delineates each period of delay, lists how each court weighed the delay periods, and
     summarizes results of the new calculations described in this opinion.

                                               11
 1   II.    DISCUSSION

 2   A.     Standard of Review

 3   {20}   As previously discussed, “In examining whether a defendant has been

 4   deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we use the four-factor test set

 5   forth in Barker.” Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 4. Importantly however, “[w]e defer

 6   to the district court’s factual findings in considering a speedy trial claim, but weigh

 7   each factor de novo.” Id. We accept the standard outlined by the United States

 8   Supreme Court that factual findings of a district court are “entitled to substantial

 9   deference and will be reversed only for clear error.” United States v. Taylor, 487

10   U.S. 326, 337 (1988). Like here, when a district court considers the Barker factors

11   “and supporting factual findings are not clearly in error, the district court’s judgment

12   of how opposing considerations balance should not lightly be disturbed.” Id. We turn

13   now to our analysis.

14   B.     Barker Factors

15   1.     Length of Delay

16   {21}   Whether the length of delay triggers an inquiry into the other three Barker

17   factors depends on the complexity of the case. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-31. In New

18   Mexico, the speedy trial inquiry triggers at “twelve months for simple cases, fifteen

19   months for cases of intermediate complexity, and eighteen months for complex

                                               12
 1   cases.” Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 2. It is undisputed that this was a complex case,

 2   so the triggering delay for analysis of the other Barker factors was eighteen months.

 3   The total delay of approximately sixty-nine months in this case exceeded the

 4   eighteen-month threshold by fifty-one months, and therefore an analysis into the

 5   other three Barker factors is clearly warranted. See State v. Serros, 2016-NMSC-

 6   008, ¶¶ 23-24, 366 P.3d 1121 (holding that a fifty-one-month total delay in a case of

 7   undetermined complexity weighs heavily against the state); State v. Flores, 2015-

 8   NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 355 P.3d 81 (holding that a sixty-two-month total delay in a

 9   complex case weighs heavily against the state).

10   {22}   It is important to note that while a delay beyond the eighteen-month limit is

11   “presumptively prejudicial” in a complex case, the analysis of the fourth Barker

12   factor, actual prejudice, is separate from this conclusion and relates to Defendant’s

13   pretrial incarceration in this case. See Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶¶ 6, 12, 20-21, 35

14   (explaining that a presumptively prejudicial delay triggers analysis into the other

15   factors, and differentiating presumptive prejudice from prejudice due to pretrial

16   detention or pretrial release restrictions). Accordingly, we hold that a sixty-nine-

17   month delay weighs heavily against the State as to the first Barker factor. We

18   therefore move on to analysis of the other Barker factors.

                                              13
 1   2.     Reason for the Delay

 2   {23}   Barker’s second factor, the reason for delay, is “[t]he flag all litigants seek to

 3   capture.” United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315 (1986). Our examination

 4   of the reasons for delay recognizes that “different weights should be assigned to

 5   different reasons.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531.

 6   {24}   In cases where a defendant causes or benefits from the delay, the time weighs

 7   against the defendant. See Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 43. If a prosecutor

 8   deliberately delayed trial, the delay weighs heavily against the state. Id. ¶ 29. Mere

 9   negligence or administrative delays weigh less heavily against the state. Id. “Finally,

10   a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.”

11   Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. We now turn to the particular reasons for delay in this case

12   and conclude, as the factual and procedural recitation provides, that the delay here

13   was principally attributable to Defendant’s competency determination and the

14   numerous stipulated continuances that served to assure Defendant’s competence to

15   stand trial. Therefore, the delays do not weigh against the State.

16   {25}   We begin with a discussion of how competency determinations can affect a

17   court’s review of a defendant’s speedy trial claim. Raising competence during the

18   course of a proceeding has a unique impact upon the proceeding and upon the ability

19   to bring the matter to conclusion. Unlike virtually every other reason for a delay,

                                                14
 1   raising competence causes all other work on the case to stop. Whenever a question

 2   appears, by motion of the parties or the court, as to the mental competence of a

 3   defendant to stand trial, “any further proceeding in the cause shall be suspended until

 4   the issue is determined.” NMSA 1978, § 31-9-1 (1993). That is, no criminal jeopardy

 5   confronts the defendant as long as a question of competence remains undecided.

 6   “And one who is incompetent cannot stand trial.” Mendoza, 1989-NMSC-032, ¶ 8;

 7   see also Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 386 (1966) (holding that conviction of a

 8   legally incompetent accused violates due process).

 9   {26}   This Court has previously held that delay pending a defendant’s competency

10   determination does not impact the defendant’s speedy trial right. Mendoza, 1989-

11   NMSC-032, ¶¶ 8-9 (“During the time an accused’s competency is being assessed,

12   he or she is unavailable for trial. Regardless of who initiates the proceeding a

13   competency examination is clearly on behalf of the accused and in no way infringes

14   on that person’s speedy trial rights. . . . These delays are chargeable to the defendant

15   and must be excluded from any speedy trial analysis.”). In Mendoza, we explained

16   that the competing constitutional interests at stake⸺due process demands that a

17   defendant be competent to stand trial and that a speedy trial is the defendant’s

18   right⸺reveal that delays from determinations of competence are incurred for the

19   benefit of the defendant. See id. ¶¶ 4, 8-9.

                                               15
 1   {27}   Our conclusion that delays due to competency evaluations are chargeable to

 2   the defendant is consistent with other jurisdictions’ recognition that “a defendant

 3   may not complain of delays occasioned by the trial court’s attempt to protect his

 4   interests.” United States v. Murphy, 241 F.3d 447, 454 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United

 5   States v. Antwine, 873 F.2d 1144 (8th Cir. 1989)); see also Mass. R. Crim. P.

 6   36(b)(2)(A)(i) (excluding from the computation of trial delay any period of “delay

 7   resulting from an examination of the defendant, and hearing on, his mental

 8   competency, or physical incapacity”); 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A) (excluding from

 9   delay-of-trial computations any period of delay caused by proceedings to determine

10   the defendant’s mental competence); Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 326-

11   27 (1986) (excluding from determinations of trial delay “any period of delay” from

12   “proceedings concerning the defendant” such as “time consumed . . . by a

13   competency examination” without requiring that the “period of delay be reasonable”

14   (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted)); United States v.

15   McGhee, 532 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that delay for proceedings to

16   determine the defendant’s competence is “excludable under the [Speedy Trial Act],

17   whether reasonable or unreasonable”).

18   {28}   The Court of Appeals relies on State v. Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, 140 N.M.

19   676, 147 P.3d 885, to conclude that periods of procedural delay should be parsed

                                              16
 1   from within the larger category of delay for competency determinations and

 2   allocated to the State. See Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶ 8, 10, 13. This

 3   interpretation, however, is contrary to Mendoza, in which this Court counted the

 4   entirety of the competency proceedings, not just the competency hearing itself,

 5   against the defendant because the process of adjudicating competence is “for the

 6   benefit of the defendant” and “chargeable to the defendant.” 1989-NMSC-032, ¶ 9;

 7   see also State v. Jaramillo, 2004-NMCA-041, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 322, 88 P.3d 264

 8   (interpreting Mendoza as counting the duration of competency proceedings against

 9   the accused because those “proceedings are clearly for the benefit of the accused”).

10   The Court of Appeals therefore erred in allocating weight against the State for three

11   periods of procedural delay that were directly related to determining Defendant’s

12   competence.

13   {29}   We also do not see Stock as supporting the Court of Appeals’ parsing of delays

14   that were due to Defendant’s competency evaluation. The Stock Court considered a

15   speedy trial issue where “the delay [was] in part attributable to the neglect of [a

16   defendant’s] overworked public defenders.” 2006-NMCA-140, ¶ 1; see also Serros,

17   2016-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 30, 42 (characterizing the issue in Stock as involving “attorney

18   neglect” and as considering “the fairness of attributing to the defendant delays

19   caused by defense counsel when the defendant was effectively blameless”); State v.

                                              17
1    Fierro, 2012-NMCA-054, ¶ 43, 278 P.3d 541 (distinguishing Stock because in

2    Fierro “the district court did not find that the delay was caused by the poor

3    performance of [the d]efendant’s attorneys, their neglect, or any institutional

4    deficiencies of the public defender system”). In Stock, both the state and defense

5    counsel failed to take appropriate action on the case, including failing to

6    communicate the results of the defendant’s competency evaluation, during a delay

7    of an extraordinary length. Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, ¶¶ 3-5. The Stock Court

8    concluded that “in [its] particular case . . . both parties bear some responsibility for

9    the delay.” Id. ¶ 19.

10   {30}   Notably, however, the Stock Court did not “quarrel with the [s]tate’s assertion

11   that delays caused by competency evaluations should generally not count against the

12   state for speedy trial purposes because the state cannot try an incompetent

13   defendant.” Id. Rather, under the circumstances presented, the Court could not

14   “agree that needlessly taking one and a half years to communicate the results of such

15   evaluations is for a defendant’s benefit.” Id. ¶ 21; see also Serros, 2016-NMSC-008,

16   ¶¶ 43, 46 (adopting Stock in another case involving attorney neglect and explaining

17   that the court will not weigh stipulated delays against the defendant when the

18   defendant “neither caused nor consented to those stipulations”). No such attorney

19   neglect is at issue in this case.

                                               18
 1   {31}   Turning to the case at hand, the Court of Appeals weighed the period from

 2   November 3, 2010, to February 22, 2011, amounting to three months and nineteen

 3   days, against the State as an administrative delay. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op.

 4   ¶ 8. While it is true that Defendant spent this time in custody waiting for a room at

 5   NMBHI, it is also true that the district court found Defendant incompetent to stand

 6   trial on November 3, 2010. Therefore, it is obvious both that the State could not

 7   proceed to trial without violating Defendant’s right to due process and that

 8   Defendant was not prejudiced because he did not face custody. Therefore, we

 9   conclude as required by Mendoza that this period is chargeable to Defendant and not

10   the State because the State could not proceed to trial as a matter of law.

11   {32}   The second period amounts to seven months and eighteen days from

12   December 6, 2011, to July 24, 2012, which the Court of Appeals weighed against

13   the State due to a reset competency hearing. Id. ¶ 10. Once again, during this time

14   Defendant was considered incompetent to stand trial. As stated before, this period

15   must be weighed against Defendant and not against the State.

16   {33}   The third period of delay erroneously allocated by the Court of Appeals was

17   one month and twenty-five days from July 24, 2012, to September 18, 2012, where

18   the prosecution asked for a new evaluation of competence based on the previous

19   evaluator’s recommendation. Id. ¶ 11. During this time, Defendant stipulated to the

                                               19
 1   State’s motion for a more current mental health evaluation. This period of time also

 2   included the time Defendant awaited transportation to NMBHI. Id. Prosecutors have

 3   a duty to inspect a defendant’s competence to stand trial lest they violate due process.

 4   Criminal Justice Standards on Mental Health, 7-4.3(b) (Am. Bar Ass’n 2016).

 5   Although the filing was attributed to the State, defense counsel stipulated to the

 6   motion, and the delay was in Defendant’s best interest, based on the advice of his

 7   evaluator. The Court of Appeals erroneously weighed this period against the State

 8   as administrative delay. We weigh this third period against Defendant.

 9   {34}   We are concerned about an outcome that discourages the prosecution from

10   requesting or agreeing to a competency evaluation for fear of having the case

11   dismissed on speedy trial claims. This complements our view that if Defendant were

12   found incompetent to stand trial, any order to detain him for treatment to attain trial

13   competence aligns with protecting Defendant and society in general and is therefore

14   not punitive. See State v. Baca, 2019-NMSC-014, ¶ 9, 448 P.3d 576. Finally, the

15   reasons for the delay in this case were not due to bad faith or negligence on behalf

16   of the State.

17   {35}   As stated herein, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact. Significantly,

18   the district court concluded that none of the delay by the State “was intentionally

19   caused and there were no unnecessarily prolonged periods of delay, but rather the

                                                20
 1   parties appear [to] have been moving toward trial,” based in large part on the district

 2   court’s own review of the delay between Defendant’s April 19, 2010, indictment and

 3   the February 8, 2016, jury trial. We hereby apply our revisions for the three

 4   procedural periods of delay to the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on its

 5   assessment of the reasons for approximately seventy months of delay. Accordingly,

 6   and as the Appendix documents, we hold that twenty-four months weigh against the

 7   State, twenty months weigh neutrally, and twenty-six months weigh against

 8   Defendant. Of the twenty months that weigh neutrally, Defendant’s questionable

 9   competence caused most of that delay. We therefore correct the Court of Appeals,

10   Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶ 18, 30 (concluding that the reason for delay

11   weighs “heavily against the State”), and we do not weigh the second Barker factor

12   against the State.

13   3.     Assertion of the Right

14   {36}   We turn next to the third Barker factor, a defendant’s assertion of the speedy

15   trial right, and consider “[w]hether and how a defendant assert[ed] his right.” Barker,

16   407 U.S. at 531. A “defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right . . . is entitled to

17   strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of

18   the right.” Id. at 531-32. The Barker Court “emphasize[d] that failure to assert the

19   right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.”

                                                21
 1   Id. at 532. In addition, a defendant who “invoked his right to a speedy trial in words

 2   while simultaneously operating in a dilatory manner leads us to conclude that [the

 3   d]efendant’s assertions of the right were at best nominal and at worst an act of

 4   gamesmanship.” State v. Steinmetz, 2014-NMCA-070, ¶ 62, 327 P.3d 1145.

 5   {37}   When weighing delay against a defendant, we “first consider whether [the

 6   d]efendant is to blame for the delays . . . because he has personally caused or

 7   acquiesced to the delay in his case.” Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 43; see also United

 8   States v. Margheim, 770 F.3d 1312, 1328 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Moving for many

 9   continuances, or otherwise indicating that the defendant is not pursuing a swift

10   resolution of his case will tip the balance of this factor heavily against the

11   defendant.” (text only) (citation omitted)). If delay does not weigh against a

12   defendant, “then we consider whether the [s]tate has met its obligation to bring [the

13   d]efendant’s case to trial.” Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 43.

14   {38}   In this case, the defense stipulated to at least six continuances and

15   independently moved for continuance on the eve of trial. Therefore, we not only

16   defer to the finding of the district court that Defendant was “to some extent . . .

                                              22
 1   engaged in gamesmanship,” but we also find it well supported in our review.5 See

 2   State v. Moreno, 2010-NMCA-044, ¶ 14, 148 N.M. 253, 233 P.3d 782 (“The district

 3   court characterized this conduct as a form of gamesmanship in which [the d]efendant

 4   was agreeing to continuances only because he later intended to file a speedy trial

 5   claim.”); see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 534-35 (“[T]he record strongly suggests that

 6   . . . [the defendant] hoped to take advantage of the delay in which he had acquiesced,

 7   and thereby obtain a dismissal of the charges. . . . More important than the absence

 8   of serious prejudice, is the fact that Barker did not want a speedy trial.”).

 9   {39}   We consider Defendant’s behavior in weighing his assertion of the speedy

10   trial right. Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 43. Here, Defendant asserted his right to a

11   speedy trial five times: three times during entries of appearances of counsel and

12   twice in connection with his October 2015 motion to dismiss based on violation of

13   his speedy trial rights. However, “pro forma motions are generally afforded

            5
              According to the State, this is the second time that Defendant has been
     charged with murder and has filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation at
     the very last minute. The State alleged at trial and in its briefing that “it is certainly
     understandable that the defense filed this speedy trial motion⸻after all the same
     strategy worked in getting the Defendant’s first homicide case dismissed.” It does
     appear that in 2011 a district court concluded in a separate case that “Defendant’s
     right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
     . . . has been violated by the delay in bringing the Defendant[] to trial.” See Order of
     Dismissal, State v. Gurule, D-202-CR-2005-02559 (May 11, 2011).

                                                23
 1   relatively little weight in this analysis.” State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, ¶ 16, 135

 2   N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061. In this case, the district court gave little weight to the three

 3   speedy trial demands on entry of appearance. Further, this Court recognizes that “the

 4   closer to trial an assertion is made, the less weight it is given.” Moreno, 2010-

 5   NMCA-044, ¶ 33. Here, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial

 6   also earns little weight as the motion was made within a few months of trial after

 7   most of the delay had already passed. Finally, because Defendant acquiesced to

 8   several of the State’s continuances and moved for his own continuances, we do not

 9   weigh the third Barker factor against the State. See Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶¶ 38-

10   39.

11   4.     Particularized Prejudice

12   {40}   The fourth and final factor for us to consider is prejudice to the defendant.

13   Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. As it relates to pretrial incarceration, such prejudice must

14   be particularized, and it weighs in the defendant’s favor when the “anxiety suffered

15   is undue.” Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 51 (internal quotation marks and citation

16   omitted). Again, this element is not to be confused with “presumptively prejudicial

17   delay,” which “refers to prejudice to the fundamental right to a speedy trial, not to

18   specific prejudice covered by the fourth Barker element.” Garza, 2009-NMSC-038,

19   ¶ 19 (text only) (citation omitted); see Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶ 22-26.

                                               24
 1   {41}   The Court of Appeals rejected the district court’s finding that Defendant’s

 2   pretrial confinement did not cause undue anxiety and concern. In doing so, the Court

 3   of Appeals incorrectly concluded that the suffering of “extreme prejudice” occurred

 4   as a matter of law based on the length of time Defendant was incarcerated before

 5   trial. See Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶ 23, 29. (“Although we acknowledge

 6   that Defendant’s initial and continued placement in segregation was the result of his

7    conduct while in custody, we cannot ignore the oppressive impact the conditions and

8    duration of his incarceration had on Defendant.”).

 9   {42}   The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Defendant “suffered extreme

10   prejudice,” id. ¶ 29, is not supported by the record and, more importantly, ignores

11   deference to the trial court’s discretion in finding that Defendant showed no

12   particularized prejudice. In addition, the Court of Appeals’ conclusion is not

13   supported by precedent in that, like all other Barker factors, a claim of particularized

14   prejudice must be made “through a review of the circumstances of a case, which

15   may not be divorced from a consideration of the [s]tate and the defendant’s conduct

16   and the harm to the defendant from the delay.” Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 13; see

17   Barker, 407 U.S. at 533. We undertake such a review now.

18   {43}   In Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, “[t]he United States Supreme Court . . . identified

19   three interests under which we analyze prejudice to the defendant: (i) to prevent

                                               25
 1   oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the

 2   accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” Garza,

 3   2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Fierro,

 4   2012-NMCA-054, is on point for our analysis of prejudice. In Fierro, the defendant

 5   claimed his speedy trial rights were violated due to a fifty-five-month period

 6   between arrest and trial. Id. ¶¶ 36, 57. His bond was set at $250,000, cash only, due

 7   to allegations that the defendant had threatened the victim and her family and that

 8   the defendant tried to have the victim killed. Id. ¶ 58. Because the defendant could

 9   not post bond, he remained incarcerated during the entire pretrial period and was in

10   segregation for the majority of his incarceration as a necessity “for [the d]efendant’s

11   own safety.” Id. The defendant received prescribed medication to help deal with the

12   mental toll of his incarceration. Id. ¶¶ 57-58. The Fierro Court addressed the three

13   interests underlying prejudice analysis, concluded ultimately that the failure to show

14   concrete prejudice defeated the defendant’s speedy trial claim, and weighed the

15   prejudices stemming from the defendant’s pretrial incarceration neutrally. Id. ¶ 60.

16   With reference to Fierro, our analysis here examines each of the three prejudice

17   interests separately.

                                               26
 1   a.     Prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration

 2   {44}   The district court analyzed prejudice to Defendant, the fourth Barker factor,

 3   using the particular facts surrounding Defendant’s segregation. Defendant was in

 4   segregation because his behavior was incompatible with placement in the general

 5   population and because the prison had an obligation to protect other inmates and

 6   staff. In particular, the district court focused on the testimony of a Metropolitan

 7   Detention Center officer, Lieutenant Abraham Gallardo. Lieutenant Gallardo

 8   testified that the Metropolitan Detention Center made several efforts to move

 9   Defendant into the general population and reported that Defendant’s violent actions

10   stopped any and all efforts to do so. Defendant, like the defendant in Fierro,

11   remained in custody and in segregation for safety reasons. Fierro, 2012-NMCA-

12   054, ¶ 58 (describing circumstances that led to the conclusion that the defendant had

13   not demonstrated any particularized or undue prejudice due to his incarceration).

14   {45}   The district court concluded that Defendant was placed in administrative

15   segregation because of his violent behavior, not because of the charges he faced. The

16   district court found several instances where Defendant assaulted or threatened staff.

17   Notably, Defendant assaulted eight staff members at initial booking. The record

18   shows and the district court recognized that jail staff attempted to move Defendant

19   into the general population but that further violent behavior forced his continued

                                              27
 1   segregation. In many ways, Defendant has a weaker argument for a speedy trial

 2   claim than that presented in Fierro. Custodial segregation of the defendant in Fierro

 3   “was necessary for [the d]efendant’s own safety.” Fierro 2012-NMCA-054, ¶ 58. In

 4   this case, Defendant had more control than the defendant in Fierro over whether he

 5   remained in segregation or whether he would be allowed into general population,

 6   and here, Defendant’s own behavior was to blame for the restrictions he faced in

 7   segregation. Therefore, any prejudice suffered was due to Defendant’s own actions.

 8   See McGhee, 532 F.3d at 740 (“Any prejudice from pretrial incarceration was

 9   attributable to [the defendant’s] own acts.”) Accordingly, the district court correctly

10   found that Defendant did not demonstrate particularized prejudice due to his time

11   spent in segregation.

12   b.     Minimize anxiety and concern of the accused

13   {46}   Next, the district court considered the anxiety and concern of the accused,

14   referring to Defendant’s affidavit stating that he was unable to maintain a

15   relationship with his family, suffered from depression and anxiety attacks, and was

16   kept in segregation. While Defendant asserted that he suffered from anxiety and

17   PTSD, he did not specify when his mental conditions started, and, despite “his

18   alleged mental state when he was first imprisoned,” the district court declined to

19   speculate that his symptoms were caused by the delay. The district court further

                                               28
 1   declined to find that Defendant’s relationship with his family had changed because

 2   of incarceration, maintaining instead that loss of contact with family is a normal

 3   consequence of incarceration and that this particular set of circumstances was not

 4   unique to Defendant. Given Defendant’s erratic and violent behavior even as he was

 5   booked, it was entirely reasonable for the district court to find that Defendant did not

 6   associate his current mental state with the time he spent in incarceration, taking into

 7   consideration Defendant’s mental state before he was incarcerated. Defendant failed

 8   to state when his alleged mental conditions arose, and given the mental state he

 9   exhibited when he was first imprisoned, well before the presumptive-prejudice

10   deadline, this Court will not speculate that the delay in trial caused the issues

11   Defendant alleges.

12   c.     Limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired

13   {47}   The district court in this case also found that Defendant did not provide any

14   particular testimony that would have been offered by his missing witnesses. In

15   Fierro, the defendant did claim that some potentially exculpatory, albeit speculatory,

16   testimony was lost. 2012-NMCA-054, ¶¶ 59-60 (discussing the defendant’s claim

17   concerning the death of a potential witness who the defendant alleged “would have

18   testified that [the victim] and her mother fabricated the charges against him”).

19   Nonetheless, the court in Fierro still declined to weigh the fourth factor in favor of

                                               29
 1   the defendant. Id. Here, Defendant claimed that his defense was impaired because

 2   several witnesses relocated and their memories deteriorated. However, the district

 3   court noted that Defendant did not “state with particularity what exculpatory

 4   testimony would have been offered” or “present evidence that the delay caused the

 5   witness’s unavailability,” as required by Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 36 (brackets,

 6   internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Significantly, the Court of Appeals

 7   does not discuss or give weight to any consideration of Defendant’s inability to

 8   present a defense. This is significant because Barker tells us, “Of these, the most

 9   serious is [possible impairment of the defense] because the inability of a defendant

10   adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system.” Barker, 407

11   U.S. at 532.

12   {48}   Finally, the district court’s decision was not contrary to Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-

13   031. Ochoa directs us to “presume that there was some impairment of the defense”

14   based on the length of pretrial detention, subject to a “[d]efendant’s burden of

15   showing particularized prejudice.” 2017-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 62, 65. See id. ¶ 64 (“In the

16   absence of such proof, this factor does not tip the scale in [the d]efendant’s favor.”).

17   In addition, the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 89-90,

18   to support a conclusion that Defendant suffered from extreme prejudice is misplaced.

19   See Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 23. The factual circumstances in Serros,

                                               30
 1   including the defendant’s pretrial detention and isolation that formed the basis of his

 2   speedy trial claim, differ from the case at hand. In Serros, this Court relied on

 3   unchallenged testimony that other inmates and jail officials had both verbally and

 4   physically abused the defendant. See Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 91 (noting two

 5   attacks on the defendant); State v. Serros, A-1-CA-31565, mem. op. ¶¶ 11-12, 46

 6   (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014) (nonprecedential) (noting testimony from several

 7   witnesses and describing attacks on the defendant by inmates). In greatest contrast

 8   to the case at bar, the defendant in Serros was not permitted to move out of

 9   segregation, despite his repeated requests to do so, for safety concerns due to the

10   nature of the charges against him. See Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 6, 91. In our

11   view, the Court of Appeals incorrectly relies on Ochoa and Serros⸺without

12   addressing their reasoning⸺to conclude as a matter of law that the length of pretrial

13   incarceration and solitary confinement is enough to find a speedy trial violation.

14   Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶¶ 22-29. Here, as we have pointed out,

15   Defendant was in segregation not because of the charges he faced but because of his

16   clearly established violent behavior. In addition, the facts surrounding any claim of

17   prejudice to Defendant were not established through “unchallenged testimony” as in

18   Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 88 (emphasis omitted), but instead they were highly

19   contested facts properly reviewed and decided by the trial court.

                                               31
 1   {49}   We agree with the district court that Defendant has not shown particularized

 2   prejudice and that any prejudice he suffered during his time in segregation was the

 3   result of his own behavior. Therefore, we decline to weigh the fourth Barker factor

 4   against the State.

 5   C.     Dissent

 6   {50}   The dissent alleges that “[t]he majority upends this Court’s speedy trial

 7   jurisprudence”6 and is in strongest disagreement with the conclusion that the

 8   competency proceedings, meant to benefit this Defendant, should be weighed

 9   against the Defendant for speedy trial purposes. Dissent ¶ 58. The dissent also

10   concludes that Defendant need only show prejudice suffered “as a result of the

11   lengthy pretrial incarceration he endured” and does not need to show actual

12   prejudice. Dissent ¶ 93. That is, the dissent would abandon the duty of a court to

13   look for actual prejudice in lieu of a bright-line rule based on the duration of the

            6
             The dissent also alleges that the majority “engages in a cursory review of the
     Barker factors,” assuring the reader that it has taken “the time to discuss each factor
     and time frame thoroughly.” Dissent ¶ 58. The dissent’s allegation is contradicted
     by this time and in pages committed by this opinion to the Barker factors, including
     the Appendix herein that lays out in detail the speedy trial calculations by the
     different courts. What the dissent’s lengthy recitation of the time frame reveals more
     than anything else is that, like the Court of Appeals, it cannot resist its own factual
     review of the record instead of affording the deference due to the trial court judge
     who presided in this case.

                                               32
 1   pretrial incarceration. We disagree. Both positions advanced by the dissent would

 2   disrupt or likely require the reversal of years of precedent by this Court.

 3   {51}   The dissent allocates the time involved in a competency determination in a

 4   way that is directly at odds with Mendoza. 1989-NMSC-032, ¶ 9. There, this Court

 5   counted the entirety of the competency proceedings, not just the competency hearing

 6   itself, against the defendant. Id. This Court reasoned that the process of adjudicating

 7   competence is “for the benefit of the defendant” and, therefore, “chargeable to the

 8   defendant.” Id.; see also Jaramillo, 2004-NMCA-041, ¶ 11 (interpreting Mendoza

 9   as counting the duration of competency proceedings against the accused because

10   those “proceedings are clearly for the benefit of the accused”). We trust the dissent

11   to acknowledge that underpinning this holding is a defendant whose case comes to

12   a halt during a competency proceeding and who faces no jeopardy to his liberty while

13   his competence is at issue. The dissent fails to clearly justify why that time should

14   be counted against the State. In addition, as we emphasized previously, our

15   conclusion that delays due to competency evaluations are chargeable to the

16   defendant is consistent with other jurisdictions’ recognition that “a defendant may

17   not complain of delays occasioned by the trial court’s attempt to protect his

18   interests.” Murphy, 241 F.3d at 454 (citing Antwine, 873 F.2d at 1150 ); see also

19   Mass. R. Crim. P. 36(b)(2)(A)(i) (excluding from the computation of trial delay any

                                               33
 1   period of “delay resulting from an examination of the defendant, and hearing on, his

 2   mental competency, or physical incapacity”); 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A) (excluding

 3   from delay-of-trial computations any period of delay caused by proceedings to

 4   determine the defendant’s mental competence); Henderson, 476 U.S. at 327, 330

 5   (excluding periods of delay for pretrial motions, including motions for determination

 6   of competence from filing of the motion to conclusion of the hearing, “whether or

 7   not a delay in holding that hearing is reasonably necessary” (internal quotation marks

 8   omitted)); McGhee, 532 F.3d at 737 (holding that delay for proceedings to determine

 9   the defendant’s competence is “excludable under the [Speedy Trial Act], whether

10   reasonable or unreasonable”).

11   {52}   Like the Court of Appeals, the dissent reads Ochoa and Serros in tandem to

12   conclude that the length of time served in pretrial incarceration is prejudicial on its

13   face. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 23. We have never announced such a rule.

14   Instead, we have established three interests that the Court considers when analyzing

15   prejudice to the defendant: (1) “oppressive pretrial incarceration,” (2) “anxiety and

16   concern of the accused,” and (3) “the possibility that the defense will be impaired.”

17   Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 35.

18   {53}   While it is true that there is a presumption of prejudice when there is a lengthy

19   incarceration, it is also true that the Defendant must still show some particularized

                                               34
 1   prejudice from his pretrial incarceration. Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 49 (“‘[W]e will

 2   not speculate as to the impact of pretrial incarceration on a defendant or the degree

 3   of anxiety a defendant suffers.’” (quoting Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 35) (alteration

 4   in original)). Ochoa also emphasizes that “[b]ecause some degree of oppression and

 5   anxiety is inherent in every incarceration, ‘we weigh this factor in the defendant’s

 6   favor only where the pretrial incarceration or anxiety suffered is undue.’” Id. ¶ 51

 7   (quoting Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 35). Ochoa recognized that a “lengthy and

 8   onerous pretrial incarceration may render affirmative proof of prejudice unnecessary

 9   to find that the defendant suffered prejudice” but that “the length of incarceration is

10   a counterweight to a defendant’s burden of production.” Id. ¶ 54. Although this Court

11   in Ochoa found that the defendant suffered prejudice based solely on the length of

12   the pretrial incarceration, it could not say whether the prejudice was undue. See id.

13   ¶ 61. Similarly, the trial court in this case, the court we trust to make such a factual

14   determination, could not say whether the prejudice was undue.

15   III.   WEIGHING THE FOUR FACTORS

16   {54}   We reaffirm our well-established holding that “the substance of the speedy

17   trial right is defined only through an analysis of the peculiar facts and circumstances

18   of each case.” Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 11. This case exceeded the eighteen-

19   month threshold for presumptive prejudice by approximately fifty-two months, and

                                               35
 1   therefore an analysis of the other three Barker factors is necessary. However, we

 2   hold that the issue of Defendant’s competence to stand trial caused most of the delay.

 3   In addition, both Defendant’s pro forma motions and his acquiescence to several

 4   continuances weigh against him. We agree with the district court that Defendant did

 5   not suffer particularized prejudice because the prejudice he suffered during his time

 6   in segregation was the result of his own behavior.

 7   {55}   “To find a speedy trial violation without a showing of actual prejudice, the

 8   Court must find that the three other Barker factors weigh heavily against the [s]tate.”

 9   State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 23, 387 P.3d 230. Because we conclude that

10   the second and third factors weigh against Defendant and that only the first weighs

11   heavily against the State, we hold that the delay between Defendant’s arrest and trial

12   did not violate his right to a speedy trial.

13   IV.    CONCLUSION

14   {56}   We reverse the Court of Appeals, affirm the district court’s denial of

15   Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remand to the Court of Appeals for further

16   consideration of the remainder of Defendant’s arguments on appeal.

17   {57}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19                                                       DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

                                                    36
1   WE CONCUR:

2
3   DUSTIN K. HUNTER, Judge
4   Sitting by designation

5
6   AMANDA SANCHEZ VILLALOBOS, Judge
7   Sitting by designation

8   C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice, dissenting

9   MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice, concurring in dissent

                                       37
 1   BACON, Chief Justice (dissenting).

 2   {58}   The majority upends this Court’s speedy trial jurisprudence in concluding that

 3   a delay of nearly six years in trying Defendant for murder is reasonable. The majority

 4   notes that this delay exceeded the eighteen-month threshold for complex cases

 5   identified in State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 2, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387, by

 6   fifty-one months, which this Court deemed presumptively prejudicial and triggered

 7   an analysis into the three other Barker factors. Maj. op. ¶ 21. See State v. Gurule, A-

 8   1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 4 (N.M. Ct. App. July 31, 2019) (nonprecedential)

 9   (deferring to “the district court’s finding that this was a complex case”); see also

10   Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (identifying the four factors as “[l]ength

11   of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice

12   to the defendant”). Even so, disregarding the presumption in Garza, the majority

13   contends that the reasons for delay are primarily attributable to Defendant, mainly

14   because his competence was at issue throughout this matter. Maj. op. ¶¶ 27-30.

15   Under the majority’s view, any time spent ascertaining a defendant’s competence

16   and upholding the defendant’s due process rights will counterbalance any of the

17   State’s unreasonable delay and thus permissibly infringe on a defendant’s speedy

18   trial rights. Additionally, the majority holds that Defendant had “not shown

19   particularized prejudice and that any prejudice he suffered during his segregation

                                                38
 1   was the result of his own behavior.” Maj. op. ¶ 49. Accordingly, the majority

 2   reverses the Court of Appeals, concluding that Defendant’s constitutional right to a

 3   speedy trial was not violated. Maj. op. ¶¶ 55-56. Because we disagree that the

 4   reasons for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice factors weigh against

5    Defendant, we respectfully dissent. In addition, because the majority engages in a

6    cursory review of the Barker factors, we take the time to discuss each factor and

7    timeframe thoroughly.

8    I.     THE REASONS FOR DELAY FACTOR SHOULD NOT WEIGH
9           AGAINST DEFENDANT

10   {59}   We agree with the majority that the length of delay weighs heavily against the

11   State. Maj. op. ¶ 22. The next factor in the Barker analysis requires a court to

12   consider “‘the reason the government assigns to justify the delay.’” Garza, 2009-

13   NMSC-038, ¶ 25 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531). The majority points to three

14   periods of delay for which it disagrees with the Court of Appeals’ analysis but does

15   not describe why it affirms the reasoning for the other periods of delay relevant to

16   this analysis. Because we disagree with some of the majority’s and Court of Appeals’

17   conclusions regarding periods of delay not addressed by the majority, we provide a

18   timeline for each period of delay below.

                                                39
 1   A.     April 3, 2010, to October 20, 2010

 2   {60}   The Court of Appeals stated, “From Defendant’s arrest on April 3, 2010, to

 3   October 20, 2010, the case was proceeding normally toward trial.” Gurule, A-1-CA-

 4   35724, mem. op. ¶ 7. Accordingly, the Court weighed this period of six months and

 5   seventeen days neutrally. Id. This determination was not contested by either party.

 6   The majority does not address this period of delay and thus seemingly affirms this

 7   holding. We would affirm this holding as well.

 8   B.     October 20, 2010, to November 3, 2010

 9   {61}   From October 20, 2010, to November 3, 2010, the district court found

10   Defendant incompetent to stand trial and stayed the proceedings for a competency

11   determination. Citing State v. Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, ¶¶ 19-22, 29, 140 N.M. 676,

12   147 P.3d 885, the Court of Appeals held that this period weighed against Defendant.

13   Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 8. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Stock

14   stands for the proposition that delays resulting from competency evaluations weigh

15   against the defendant because they are for the “defendant’s benefit.” Id. The majority

16   affirms this conclusion based on an alternative analysis. Maj. op. ¶¶ 26-30. We

17   disagree with both the majority’s and the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that delays

18   attributable to competency evaluations should be weighed against the defendant.

19   Moreover, weighing such delays against the defendant, absent a showing of bad faith

                                              40
 1   or deliberate attempts to delay the trial, is contrary to constitutional principles, our

 2   jurisprudence, and the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on this issue.

 3   {62}   First, “[i]t is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

 4   Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent

 5   to stand trial.” Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992). “Suspension of the

 6   criminal process where the defendant is incompetent is fundamental to assuring the

 7   fairness, accuracy, and dignity of the trial.” State v. Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048, ¶

 8   13, 122 N.M. 246, 923 P.2d 1131.

 9   {63}   Second, it is important to recognize that the state has a “duty of insuring that

10   the trial is consistent with due process.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 527. True to this

11   principle, this Court has recognized that “[t]he State has an interest in rendering a

12   defendant competent to stand trial, and, as long as [the defendant] remain[s]

13   dangerous, the State has an interest in committing [the defendant] to protect the

14   defendant[] and the public.” Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048, ¶ 23.

15   {64}   Therefore, not only do competency evaluations benefit a defendant, they also

16   are beneficial to the state in ensuring that it complies with its constitutional

17   obligations. See id. ¶ 13. The majority cites State v. Mendoza for the proposition that

18   “a competency examination is clearly on behalf of the accused and in no way

19   infringes on that person’s speedy trial rights.” 1989-NMSC-032, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 446,

                                               41
 1   774 P.2d 440. However, we distinguish between a competency-related delay not

 2   infringing on speedy trial rights and that delay being solely for the benefit of the

 3   defendant, especially as the latter proposition is not expressly supported by the

 4   underlying authorities on which Mendoza relied. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.

 5   Millard, 417 A.2d 1171, 1176 (Pa. 1979) (asserting that competency-related “delay

 6   must be attributed to the unavailability of [the defendant] and, therefore, excluded

 7   from” a speedy trial analysis (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Jones

 8   v. People, 711 P.2d 1270, 1281 (Colo. 1986) (excluding competency-related delay

 9   from speedy trial computation); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Speedy Trial

10   and Timely Resolution of Criminal Cases § 12-2.3(a)(i) (3d ed. 2006) (including

11   “examination and hearing on competency” in the “periods [that] should be excluded

12   in computing allowable time under the speedy trial rule or statute”). Mendoza and

13   its underlying authorities acknowledge that competency-related delays benefit both

14   parties and clarify that such delays should be excluded from speedy trial analysis—

15   in other words, weighed neutrally—rather than weighed against the defendant.

16   {65}   Moreover, Defendant contends that he should not have to choose between his

17   right to a speedy trial and his due process rights. We agree. This proposition is

18   supported by this Court’s analysis in State v. Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, 366 P.3d

19   1121, interpreting Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, on which the Court of Appeals relies.

                                              42
 1   Accordingly, we disagree with the majority’s conclusions regarding Stock and its

 2   implications for this analysis. In Serros, we discussed the holding in Stock and its

 3   implications for a speedy trial analysis. See Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 35-38. We

 4   began by noting that the Stock Court “held that both parties shared responsibility for

 5   the delay” related to the defendant’s competency evaluation under the circumstances

 6   in that case. Id. ¶ 36 (citing Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, ¶ 19). The fact that the delay

 7   in Stock was “extraordinary” was partially attributable to the state because it had

 8   done “‘little or nothing to ascertain what was happening in the case or to move the

 9   case forward.’” Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 (quoting Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, ¶

10   25). We determined that in Stock, although the delay related to the defendant’s

11   competency evaluations, “the reasons for the delay weighed against the State

12   because of its ‘failure to monitor the case and ensure that steps were being taken to

13   bring [the defendant] to trial in a timely manner.’” Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 37

14   (alteration in original) (quoting Stock, 2006-NMCA-140, ¶ 29).

15   {66}   We found Stock’s reasoning to be “compelling,” especially “when the delay

16   is extraordinary and the defendant is detained while awaiting trial.” Serros, 2016-

17   NMSC-008, ¶ 38. We explained that “[u]nder such circumstances, we agree that it

18   may be appropriate to shift the focus to the State’s efforts to bring the case to trial,

19   at least when the record demonstrates that the defendant did not affirmatively cause

                                               43
 1   or consent to the delay.” Id. This aligns with the United States Supreme Court’s

 2   decision in Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009). The Brillon Court announced

 3   for the first time that some delay may be charged to the defendant in a speedy trial

 4   analysis. Id. at 92-93. In Brillon, the defendant deliberately delayed his own trial by

 5   forcing the withdrawal of two out of six of his attorneys by attempting to fire one in

 6   the middle of a hearing and by threatening the life of another. Id. at 86-87, 94. Under

 7   these circumstances, the Brillon Court concluded that the defendant caused most of

 8   the delay in his case and held, “Just as a State’s deliberate attempt to delay the trial

 9   in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the State, so too

10   should a defendant’s deliberate attempt to disrupt proceedings be weighted heavily

11   against the defendant.” Id. at 93-94 (text only) (citation omitted).

12   {67}   Under this rationale, in Serros we analyzed whether delays caused by the

13   defendant seeking new counsel weighed against the defendant in that case. 2016-

14   NMSC-008, ¶ 47. We acknowledged that the inquiry “effectively pits [a d]efendant’s

15   right to a speedy trial against his right to effective assistance of counsel, and he

16   should not have to surrender one right to assert the other.” Id. Thus, we concluded

17   that we could only weigh the delay associated with the defendant’s request for new

18   counsel against him if “his assertion was unreasonable.” Id. We held that the

                                               44
 1   defendant’s assertions were not unreasonable, unlike the defendant in Brillon, and

 2   did not weigh the delay against the defendant. Id. ¶¶ 55-56.

 3   {68}   We face a similar situation here, where Defendant’s right to due process is

 4   pitted against his right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, we should only weigh delays

 5   resulting from competency evaluations against Defendant if such delays were

 6   “unreasonable.” Id. ¶ 56. It cannot be said that taking the time to determine

 7   Defendant’s competence here was unreasonable or a tactic employed by Defendant

 8   to delay his trial. See id. This is demonstrated by the fact that both parties requested

 9   inquiries into Defendant’s competence. The record does not support, nor does the

10   State contend, that Defendant himself deliberately sought competency evaluations

11   to delay his own trial.

12   {69}   Thus, we would weigh the periods of delay attributable to Defendant’s

13   competency evaluations in this case neutrally absent evidence that Defendant

14   unreasonably sought competency evaluations to delay his trial. To hold otherwise is

15   unconstitutional.

16   C.     November 3, 2010, to February 22, 2011

17   {70}   The district court found Defendant incompetent to stand trial and ordered him

18   to be transported to the New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute (“NMBHI”) for

19   treatment on November 3, 2010. By February 21, 2011, Defendant still had not been

                                               45
 1   transported to NMBHI, prompting him to file a motion to show cause for this delay.

 2   Defendant was transported to NMBHI on the following day, February 22, 2011. The

 3   Court of Appeals weighed this delay of three months and nineteen days against the

 4   State as administrative delay. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 8. We agree with

 5   the Court of Appeals’ holding regarding this period of delay, and it is uncontested

 6   by either party. Nonetheless, the majority departs from the Court of Appeal’s

 7   analysis and holds this period of delay against Defendant because it relates to a

 8   competency evaluation. Maj. op. ¶ 31. We disagree that the delay in Defendant’s

 9   transport to NMBHI due to a lack of beds can be weighed against Defendant.

10   Moreover, Defendant’s filing of the motion to show cause indicates that Defendant

11   sought swift transport to NMBHI and in no way contributed or acquiesced to this

12   delay. Additionally, Defendant was detained during this time, and there is no

13   argument that detention was in any way beneficial to Defendant. We reiterate that it

14   is the state’s obligation to bring a defendant to trial in a timely manner, and when it

15   fails to do so, such delay should weigh against the state. See Serros, 2016-NMSC-

16   008, ¶ 38 (“[W]hen the delay is extraordinary and the defendant is detained . . . it

17   may be appropriate to shift the focus to the State’s efforts to bring the case to trial,

18   at least when the record demonstrates that the defendant did not affirmatively cause

19   or consent to the delay.”).

                                               46
 1   D.     February 22, 2011, to December 6, 2011

 2   {71}   An examiner at NMBHI submitted a report on August 2, 2011, indicating that

 3   Defendant was competent to stand trial. On August 9, 2011, the district court

 4   scheduled a competency hearing for August 23, 2011. Defendant requested an

 5   evidentiary hearing regarding his competence on August 17, 2011, which prompted

 6   the district court to vacate the August 23, 2011, competency hearing and reschedule

 7   the hearing for October 11, 2011. The State filed motions for an “order requiring

 8   disclosure and protecting the privacy of records and other health information” and

 9   requested a hearing on the motions. Additionally, Defendant filed a stipulated

10   motion for continuance from the October 11, 2021, competency hearing because

11   defense counsel had plans to be out of state. The district court rescheduled the

12   hearing to December 6, 2011. The Court of Appeals weighed this period of delay of

13   nine months and fourteen days against Defendant because the delay related to

14   Defendant’s competency evaluation. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 10.

15   {72}   Defendant contests this holding in relation to the period of delay between

16   February 22, 2011, and August 23, 2011, during which he was at NMBHI until the

17   original competency hearing was set. He argues that this period of delay, totaling

18   one hundred eighty-two days, should bear neutral weight. The majority seemingly

19   affirmed the Court of Appeals as it did not address this period of delay. We would

                                             47
 1   weigh this period neutrally, in accordance with the analysis above addressing delays

 2   resulting from competency evaluations.

 3   {73}   Defendant agrees that the delay attributable to the delay he requested, from

 4   August 23, 2011, to December 6, 2011, should weigh against him. Accordingly,

 5   defense counsel’s requested continuance, approximately three months, to

 6   accommodate his travel plans should be weighed against Defendant. We agree.

 7   E.     December 6, 2011, to July 24, 2012

 8   {74}   The Court of Appeals weighed the seven months and eighteen days from

 9   December 6, 2011, to July 24, 2012, against the State due to the “absence of evidence

10   in the record demonstrating the reasons the district court vacated the December 6,

11   2011, competency hearing.” Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 10. The State

12   contests this holding, stating, “[t]here was evidence in the record,” including a

13   “stipulated motion to send Defendant for his second evaluation at NMBHI,” which

14   included information that “Judge Candelaria had retired and the parties had to wait

15   until a new judge was appointed.” The State also provides that “[e]ven after the new

16   judge was appointed, Defendant represented he was still in the process of getting a

17   third competency evaluation, which he stated he was seeking on August 16, 2011[,]

18   after NMBHI determined he was competent.” Thus, the State argues that this time

19   should weigh against Defendant as time spent ascertaining his competence.

                                              48
 1   {75}   The State filed a stipulated motion on July 2, 2012, to send Defendant to

 2   NMBHI for another competency evaluation. The district court granted the stipulated

 3   motion on July 5, 2012. The competency hearing was set for July 24, 2012. The

 4   majority weighed this period of delay against Defendant. Maj. op. ¶ 32. Absent

 5   evidence that Defendant was leveraging a third competency evaluation to delay his

 6   trial, and because both parties sought to determine Defendant’s competence

 7   throughout this timeframe, we would weigh this period of seven months and

 8   eighteen days neutrally.

 9   F.     July 24, 2012, to September 18, 2012

10   {76}   The district court granted the State’s stipulated motion for the court to

11   continue the July 24, 2012, competency hearing “to a later date when . . . Defendant

12   has been returned from NMBHI and another evaluation has been completed.”

13   Defendant was not transported to NMBHI until September 18, 2012. As a result, the

14   Court of Appeals weighed this period of one month and twenty-five days against the

15   State as administrative delay. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 11. The majority

16   disagrees with this analysis and weighs this period of delay against Defendant. This

17   conclusion is beyond the pale. We would affirm the Court of Appeals’ analysis, as

18   the State bears the burden of explaining pretrial delay and offered no explanation for

19   this delay.

                                              49
 1   G.     September 18, 2012, to January 28, 2013

 2   {77}   Another evaluator from NMBHI found Defendant competent to stand trial,

 3   and the district court scheduled a competency hearing for January 28, 2013. We

 4   agree with the Court of Appeals’ determination that this period of four months and

 5   ten days should be weighed neutrally. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 13. The

 6   majority seemingly affirms the Court of Appeals, although it weighs other delays

 7   attributable to Defendant’s competency evaluations against Defendant. It is unclear

 8   why this inconsistency exists because the majority does not engage in a thorough

 9   analysis of each period of delay. The district court, not either of the parties,

10   scheduled the competency hearing related to this period of delay. However, under

11   the majority’s rationale, delays relating to ascertaining a defendant’s competence are

12   always on behalf of the defendant, regardless of who initiates an evaluation or

13   hearing. Thus, this conclusion is directly contradictory to the majority’s principal

14   basis for holding that Defendant’s speedy trial rights were not violated here.

15   H.     January 28, 2013, to May 22, 2013

16   {78}   On January 22, 2013, the State filed a stipulated motion to continue the

17   January 28, 2013, competency hearing, citing both parties’ need for more time to

18   prepare. In its motion, the State also explained that Defendant did not respond to the

19   State’s request for information until January 18, 2013. Thus, the Court of Appeals

                                              50
 1   weighed this period of three months and twenty-four days neutrally “as it was the

 2   result of both parties’ need for additional time to prepare, as well as defense

 3   counsel’s failure to respond to the State’s request for information.” Gurule, A-1-CA-

 4   35724, mem. op. ¶ 13. This timeframe went unaddressed by the majority, so we

 5   assume it affirms the Court of Appeals. We agree with this conclusion.

 6   I.     May 22, 2013, to June 26, 2013

 7   {79}   The district court rescheduled the competency hearing set to take place on

 8   May 22, 2013, to June 26, 2013, because the New Mexico Department of Health

 9   objected to the State’s subpoenas, contending they were issued too close to the

10   scheduled competency hearing and many witnesses could not attend. We agree with

11   Court of Appeals’ determination that this period of one month and four days should

12   be weighed against the State as negligent or administrative delay. Gurule, A-1-CA-

13   35724, mem. op. ¶ 14. See Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 26 (weighing “negligent or

14   administrative delay” against the state). The majority does not address this

15   timeframe, so we assume it affirms the Court of Appeals.

16   J.     June 26, 2013, to December 2, 2013

17   {80}   The district court found Defendant competent to stand trial following the June

18   26, 2013, competency hearing and scheduled the trial to begin on December 2, 2013.

19   Absent any argument that this delay is attributable to either party, the Court of

                                              51
 1   Appeals weighed this period of five months and six days neutrally. Gurule, A-1-CA-

 2   35724, mem. op. ¶ 14. The majority does not address this timeframe, so we assume

 3   it affirms the Court of Appeals. We would do the same.

 4   K.     July 7, 2014, to October 20, 2014

 5   {81}   The State filed another stipulated motion to continue the trial setting, and the

 6   district court rescheduled the trial to begin on October 20, 2014. In its motion, the

 7   State explained that it needed more time to conduct pretrial interviews and resolve

 8   discovery issues. Consequently, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ determination

 9   that this delay of three months and thirteen days weighs against the State. Gurule,

10   A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 15. The majority seemingly affirms this holding as it

11   does not address this timeframe.

12   L.     December 2, 2013, to July 7, 2014

13   {82}   The State filed a stipulated motion to continue the December 2, 2013, trial for

14   the purpose of pursuing a plea deal. The Court of Appeals weighed this delay of

15   seven months and five days against the State. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶

16   15. In support of this finding, the Court of Appeals cited State v. Samora, 2016-

17   NMSC-031, ¶ 13, 387 P.3d 230, which provides that “it is well settled that the

18   possibility of a plea agreement does not relieve the State of its duty to pursue a timely

19   disposition of the case” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted.). Further,

                                                52
 1   Samora weighed the period of delay caused by the parties’ pursuit of a plea deal

 2   against the state. Id.

 3   {83}   We agree with the Court of Appeals’ determination relating to this timeframe.

 4   Even if pursuing a plea was in both parties’ best interests, the State was not relieved

 5   of its duty to keep the case moving towards trial. See id. The majority does not

 6   address this timeframe and thus seemingly affirms this holding.

 7   M.     October 20, 2014, to November 17, 2014

 8   {84}   Defendant filed a motion to continue the October 20, 2014, trial setting on

 9   September 8, 2014. Defendant cited defense counsel’s schedule and the need for

10   additional time to interview witnesses and resolve discovery disputes as his reasons

11   for doing so. The district court granted the motion over the State’s objection, and the

12   trial was rescheduled for November 17, 2014. We agree with the Court of Appeals’

13   determination that this period of twenty-eight days weighs against Defendant

14   because defense counsel requested this delay. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶

15   16 (citing State v. Deans, 2019-NMCA-015, ¶ 10, 435 P.3d 1280 (“[A]ny delay

16   caused by the defendant generally weighs against the defendant.”)). The majority

17   does not address this timeframe, and thus we assume it affirms this holding.

                                               53
 1   N.     November 17, 2014, to February 2, 2015

 2   {85}   Defense counsel filed another motion for continuance from the scheduled

 3   November 17, 2014, trial, citing the need for more time for expert preparation, more

 4   time to explain the State’s plea to Defendant, and a change in defense counsel. The

 5   district court scheduled the trial for February 2, 2015. The Court of Appeals weighed

 6   this period of two months and sixteen days against Defendant. Gurule, A-1-CA-

 7   35724, mem. op. ¶ 16 The majority does not address this timeframe and thus

 8   seemingly affirms this holding. We would do the same.

 9   O.     February 2, 2015, to February 8, 2016

10   {86}   The district court vacated the February 2, 2015, trial setting and scheduled

11   trial for February 8, 2016, as a result of “a congested court docket” and “the

12   impending imposition of LR2-400” NMRA (subsequently amended and recompiled

13   as LR2-308 NMRA). We agree with the Court of Appeals’ analysis, weighing this

14   factor against the State. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 17. In coming to this

15   conclusion, the Court of Appeals cited Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 29, which

16   identified congested court dockets as negligent delay to be weighed against the State.

17   The majority does not address this timeframe, and we again assume that it affirms

18   the Court of Appeals.

                                              54
 1   II.    THE STATE BEARS THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESPONSIBILITY
 2          FOR THE LENGTHY DELAY IN THIS CASE

 3   {87}   In sum, we would weigh approximately thirty-four months neutrally, twenty-

 4   nine months against the State, and seven months against Defendant. While different

 5   from the exact categorizations by the Court of Appeals, this finding would fall in

 6   line with its conclusion that this factor weighs heavily against the State. Gurule, A-

 7   1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 18. We also note that, even under the totals it reached, the

 8   majority offers no authority for not weighing the presumptively excessive twenty-

 9   four months against the State due to a larger number of months being attributed to

10   Defendant—essentially counterbalancing the State’s liability without providing a

11   legal rationale for such a proposition. The analysis of how to assess each delay is not

12   a balancing of whether the State or Defendant caused more delay. Instead, the

13   analysis is whether the State caused delay of unconstitutional proportion. See

14   Barker, 407 U.S. at 527 (“A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State

15   has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due

16   process.” (footnote omitted)). There is no question that the time assessed against the

17   State here is unconstitutional and violates Defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

                                               55
 1   III.   THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT FACTOR SHOULD WEIGH
 2          AGAINST THE STATE

 3   {88}   The majority disagrees with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the “assertion

 4   of the speedy trial right” factor should weigh against the State. Maj. op. ¶ 39. We

 5   would affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding as to this factor. The majority’s primary

 6   reasoning for its holding is that because Defendant “acquiesced to several of the

 7   State’s continuances and moved for his own continuances,” this factor should weigh

 8   against him. Maj. op. ¶ 39. The majority relied on Serros for the proposition that we

 9   “‘first consider whether [the d]efendant is to blame for the delays . . . because he has

10   personally caused or acquiesced to the delay in his case.’” Maj. op. ¶ 37 (alteration

11   and omission in original) (quoting Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 43).

12   {89}   The Court of Appeals acknowledged that this factor should only weigh

13   slightly in Defendant’s favor. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 20. Defendant

14   asserted his right to a speedy trial on five different occasions. Id. He first asserted

15   his right to a speedy trial as part of an entry of appearance on April 16, 2010. Id.

16   Next, Defendant asserted his right on May 26, 2010, as a part of defense counsel’s

17   entry of appearance in district court. Id. Defendant asserted his right a third time on

18   January 22, 2015, again in conjunction with defense counsel’s entry of appearance.

19   Id. The Court of Appeals gave these three assertions little weight, citing State v.

20   Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, ¶ 16, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061, for the proposition that

                                               56
 1   “[s]uch pro forma motions are generally afforded relatively little weight in this

 2   analysis.” Defendant’s fourth and final assertions were filed on October 5, 2015, and

 3   February 4, 2016. Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶ 20. The majority also based

 4   its conclusion partially on the fact that Defendant’s assertions of the right were pro

 5   forma. Maj. op. ¶ 39.

 6   {90}   We disagree that Urban compels us to weigh this factor against Defendant.

 7   Our jurisprudence requires us to consider all of the circumstances surrounding the

 8   case before determining whether a defendant’s assertion of the right has been

 9   mitigated. See State v. Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 42, 406 P.3d 505 (“In evaluating

10   the [assertion of the right] factor, this Court has also noted the importance of closely

11   examining the circumstances of each case.”). In Garza, the defendant only asserted

12   his right to a speedy trial once as part of his waiver of arraignment and plea of not

13   guilty. 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 4. We acknowledged, “[T]he timeliness and vigor with

14   which the right is asserted may be considered as an indication of whether a defendant

15   was denied needed access to speedy trial over his objection or whether the issue was

16   raised on appeal as afterthought.” Id. ¶ 32. We also emphasized the importance of

17   analyzing the circumstances of each case. Id. ¶ 33. In doing so, we held that the

18   defendant’s seemingly pro forma singular assertion of his right was sufficient for

19   this factor to weigh in his favor, partially because he did not directly cause or

                                               57
 1   acquiesce to the delay in his case. Id. ¶ 34. Here, we cannot say that Defendant’s five

 2   assertions of his right to a speedy trial were “raised on appeal as afterthought.” See

 3   id. ¶ 32. Nor can we say that, under the circumstances, Defendant caused or

 4   acquiesced to most of the delay such that his five speedy trial right assertions are

 5   now void. While this Court’s jurisprudence indicates that we may consider whether

 6   a defendant’s assertions are pro forma, we disagree that this shifts the weight in favor

 7   of the state under the circumstances in this case. See Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 41

 8   (“The frequency and force of the objections can be taken into account in considering

 9   the defendant’s assertion, as well as whether an assertion is purely pro forma.”).

10   {91}   We also question courts’ continued reliance on Urban for the proposition that

11   pro forma assertions of the right must be given slight weight. A defendant’s manner

12   in asserting a constitutional right should not be diminished based on the form used

13   to assert the right. While asserting the right timely and with vigor may afford more

14   weight to the defendant under this factor, the fact that a defendant made such

15   assertion via an entry of appearance should not lessen its impact.

16   {92}   Finally, the Court of Appeals acknowledged, “To the extent that

17   [Defendant’s] motions were efforts to expedite the time in which Defendant was

18   brought to trial, . . . ‘Defendant’s assertions of the right were mitigated by his

19   acquiescence to, and responsibility for, numerous delays.’” Gurule, A-1-CA-35724,

                                               58
 1   mem. op. ¶ 21 (quoting Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 20). In our view, Defendant

 2   was not responsible for the vast majority of the delay in this case, but he did bear

 3   some responsibility for the delay. Moreover, Defendant asserted his right to a speedy

 4   trial five times. This leads to our conclusion that this factor should weigh against the

 5   State. Further, mitigating factors present sound reasoning for the Court of Appeals’

 6   conclusion that the weight is slight. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with the

 7   majority that this factor should weigh in the State’s favor.

8    IV.    THE EXTRAORDINARY DELAY IN THIS MATTER PREJUDICED
9           DEFENDANT

10   {93}   The majority contends that the prejudice factor weighs against Defendant. We

11   disagree with this analysis, as it is contrary to our own jurisprudence. We therefore

12   would affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that Defendant suffered prejudice as a

13   result of the lengthy pretrial incarceration he endured.

14   {94}   This Court acknowledged in Garza that, “if the length of delay and the reasons

15   for the delay weigh heavily in [the] defendant’s favor and [the] defendant has

16   asserted his right and not acquiesced to the delay, then the defendant need not show

17   prejudice for a court to conclude that the defendant’s right has been violated.” Garza,

18   2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 39. It follows that “[a]lthough a defendant bears the burden of

19   proving prejudice, this burden varies with the length of pretrial incarceration.”

20   Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 52. “Thus, the length of incarceration is a counterweight

                                               59
 1   to a defendant’s burden of production.” Id. ¶ 54. Therefore, the Court of Appeals

 2   held that “[a]s Defendant was incarcerated for over five years before he was brought

 3   to trial, we presume that he was prejudiced.” Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op. ¶

 4   23.

 5   {95}   This holding falls in line with this Court’s jurisprudence. This Court held in

 6   Ochoa that the defendant’s two-year incarceration was presumptively prejudicial.

 7   2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 57. We acknowledged “excessive delay presumptively

 8   compromises the reliability of a trial in ways that neither party can prove or, for that

 9   matter, identify.” Id. ¶ 56 (text only) (quoting Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S.

10   647, 655 (1992)). Further, we held that “[c]ontinuous pretrial incarceration is

11   obviously oppressive to some degree, even in the absence of affirmative proof.”

12   Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 57. Furthermore, this Court held in Serros that a period

13   of four years of pretrial incarceration “is oppressive on its face.” 2016-NMSC-008,

14   ¶ 90. Over five years of incarceration well exceeds the lapses of time that were found

15   to be presumptively prejudicial in Ochoa and Serros.

16   {96}   It is also important to recognize that even though the Serros Court discussed

17   the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s incarceration, those circumstances

18   ultimately were not a key factor in its finding of prejudice. The Court indicated this

19   by stating that it “already [had] determined that the first three factors weigh heavily

                                               60
 1   in [the d]efendant’s favor, and [it] therefore need not consider whether [the

 2   d]efendant has made a particularized showing of prejudice.” Serros, 2016-NMSC-

 3   008, ¶ 87. In addition, the Serros Court only addressed the prejudice factor “to clarify

 4   what [it] view[ed] as a misapplication of the law by the Court of Appeals majority.”

 5   Id.

 6   {97}   Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals and would affirm its analysis of

 7   the prejudice factor in State v. Brown, 2017-NMCA-046, 396 P.3d 171. In Brown,

 8   the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant was “substantially prejudiced”

 9   by a pretrial incarceration period of thirty-three months. Id. ¶ 36. The state presented

10   other mitigating factors, “including that [the d]efendant finished his high school

11   education, did not suffer reported incidents of violence, and did not receive any

12   behavioral misconduct violations while incarcerated.” Id. However, the Brown Court

13   determined those factors “d[id] not sufficiently affect the degree of prejudice

14   suffered as a result of [the d]efendant’s extended pretrial incarceration.” Id. It

15   reasoned that “[b]ecause [the d]efendant need not prove both undue pretrial

16   incarceration and undue anxiety suffered, but may prove either, a determination of

17   substantial prejudice arising from undue pretrial incarceration is justified in this

18   case.” Id.

                                               61
 1   {98}   Thus, under Brown, because the length of delay here was extraordinary, and

 2   because the reasons for delay weigh in Defendant’s favor, the delay in this case is

 3   presumptively prejudicial, and it is not necessary for Defendant to prove he suffered

 4   undue anxiety. See id.; see also State v. Spearman, 2012-NMSC-023, ¶ 36, 283 P.3d

 5   272 (“‘[W]e weigh this factor in the defendant’s favor . . . where the pretrial

 6   incarceration or the anxiety suffered is undue.’” (second alteration in original)

 7   (quoting Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 35)). This analysis would lead to the same

 8   conclusion as the Court of Appeals that “[a]lthough we acknowledge that

 9   Defendant’s initial and continued placement in segregation was the result of his

10   conduct while in custody, we cannot ignore the oppressive impact the conditions and

11   duration of his incarceration had on Defendant.” Gurule, A-1-CA-35724, mem. op.

12   ¶ 29. We further agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that “Defendant’s

13   motions for continuances . . . resulted in only a minor delay in his pretrial

14   incarceration. We therefore conclude that Defendant suffered extreme prejudice.”

15   Id.

16   V.     CONCLUSION

17   {99}   We would hold that all four Barker factors weigh against the State, thus,

18   Defendant’s speedy trial rights were violated. Our main disagreements with the

19   majority are its weighing of periods of delay related to competency evaluations

                                              62
1   against Defendant and its finding that Defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of

2   almost six years of pretrial incarceration. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

3
4                                              C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

5   I CONCUR:

6
    MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

                                              63
                                APPENDIX

Months of Delay Weighed Against the Parties and Neutrally, in Three Courts

                   State                 Neutrally     Defendant

District Court     33 months             20 months     16 months

Court of Appeals   37 months             20 months     13 months

Supreme Court      37 months             20 months     13 months
                   -3 months, 19 days                  +3 months, 19 days
                   -7 months, 18 days                  +7 months, 18 days
                   -1 month, 25 days                   +1 month, 25 days

                   =                                   =

                   37 months                           13 months
                   -11months, 62 days                  +11 months, 62 days

                   =                                   =

                   37 months                           13 months
                   -13 months                          +13 months

                   =                     =             =

                   24 months             20 months     26 months

                                        64