612 F. App'x 877
9th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Alex Carreon was convicted in California of assault with intent to commit rape, forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object, and assault causing great bodily injury. He filed a federal habeas petition asserting a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation.
- The California Court of Appeal measured delay from the second felony complaint; the Ninth Circuit found that was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law because delay should be measured from arrest.
- The total delay between arrest and trial exceeded one year (triggering the Barker analysis). Much of the delay was attributable to continuances requested by Carreon, continuances the defense acquiesced to, an interlocutory appeal, and government continuances for unavailable witnesses.
- The critical claimed prejudice was loss of an independent eyewitness, security guard Joanna Osuna, who reportedly saw the defendant and the alleged victim appearing to engage in consensual sex; Osuna moved during the pretrial period and became unavailable.
- The panel majority held the delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment: the reasons for delay and Carreon’s own acquiescence to continuances weighed against him, his assertion of the speedy‑trial right was undermined by his requests/acquiescence to continuances, and the record showed lack of diligence by defense counsel in securing Osuna’s attendance (no subpoena or deposition taken).
- The court noted Carreon might have an ineffective-assistance claim for counsel’s conduct but rejected a Speedy Trial Clause claim; a dissent argued the loss of Osuna was precisely the type of prejudice the speedy-trial right protects and would have granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carreon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 864+ day delay between arrest and trial violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial | Delay measured from arrest; excessive delay prejudiced defense because independent eyewitness Osuna became unavailable and could have given highly exculpatory testimony | Delay largely due to defense continuances, defense acquiescence, interlocutory appeal, and government witness problems; any witness loss resulted from defense counsel’s lack of diligence | Denied — no Sixth Amendment violation under de novo review: Barker factors weigh against Carreon |
| Proper temporal measure for speedy-trial delay | Use arrest-to-trial period (not time from later charging document) | State argued later complaint date was appropriate measure | Arrest-to-trial is the correct measure; state court’s contrary measure was an unreasonable application of federal law, so review was de novo |
| Whether defense assertion of speedy-trial right was robust | Carreon asserts he demanded a speedy trial | Carreon requested and/or acquiesced to continuances after asserting the right, undermining the assertion | Assertion weakened by subsequent continuances; factor disfavors Carreon |
| Whether prejudice resulted from delay (loss of Osuna) | Loss of independent eyewitness deprived defense of potentially exculpatory testimony on consent | Loss was caused by defense counsel’s lack of diligence (failure to subpoena or depose, delayed follow-up), not by the pretrial delay itself | No prejudice attributable to the delay; factor disfavors Carreon (majority). Dissent would find prejudice and grant relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial test)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (delay measured from arrest-to-trial despite dismissed/re-filed indictments)
- United States v. Gregory, 322 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. speedy-trial factor framework)
- Castellanos v. Small, 766 F.3d 1137 (state court’s incorrect legal standard permits de novo review)
- United States v. King, 483 F.3d 969 (reason-for-delay is the focal Barker inquiry)
- United States v. Drake, 543 F.3d 1080 (continuances attributable to defendant do not weigh in favor of speedy-trial claim)
- United States v. Guerrero, 756 F.2d 1342 (prejudice requires causal link between delay and witness unavailability; defendant’s lack of diligence defeats claim)
- People v. Perez, 207 Cal.App.3d 431 (witness may be subpoenaed to be "on-call")