Andrew Mascarenas v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 163
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Mascarenas was arrested Oct 15, 2011 for felony DUI, reckless driving, suspended license, and no interlock device; blood was drawn after the arrest following a warrant; BAC later found at .23; state filed a new Information after blood results adding a BAC > .08 charge; he proceeded pro se after waiving counsel; trial set for Sept 11, 2012; he was incarcerated 332 days before trial; issue concerns whether speedy trial rights were violated and whether the evidence supported reckless driving.
- The district court treated the new Information as a replacement with a preliminary hearing, and the State explained filing a new Information to address new evidence from the blood test.
- The appellate court used Barker v. Wingo to analyze speedy trial rights with four factors: length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice.
- The court distinguished Rule 48 from the constitutional speedy-trial analysis and found the delay not presumptively prejudicial, but still analyzable under the Barker factors.
- On the reckless driving issue, the State presented evidence of the crash and surrounding circumstances beyond DUI alone, allowing a reasonable inference of disregard for safety.
- The court affirmed both the speedy-trial ruling and the reckless-driving conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation under the Sixth Amendment | Mascarenas contends 332-day delay violated rights | State argues delay was justified and not prejudicial | Not violated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless driving | State failed to show willful or wanton disregard | Evidence supported recklessness from the crash | Sufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test applied)
- Berry v. State, 93 P.3d 222 (Wy. 2004) (speedy-trial analysis within Barker framework; extensive delay considerations)
- Wehr v. State, 841 P.2d 104 (Wy. 1992) (delay justified when evidence or circumstances change; neutral factorsithm)
- Boucher v. State, 245 P.3d 342 (Wy. 2011) (neutral factor for dismissal/re-filing delays; not to thwart defense)
- Strandlien v. State, 156 P.3d 986 (Wy. 2007) (prejudice focus includes impairment of defense)
- Potter v. State, 158 P.3d 656 (Wy. 2007) (speedy-trial framework application)
- Whitney v. State, 99 P.3d 457 (Wy. 2004) (prejudice and balancing considerations in speedy-trial analysis)