Butler v. State
309 Ga. App. 86
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Butler was arrested May 30, 2007, and indicted October 4, 2007, on aggravated assault, aggravated battery, firearm charges, and marijuana possession.
- Butler remained jailed after a bond hearing denial on October 5, 2007, and has since had at least five different attorneys.
- Butler sent multiple letters seeking a speedy trial beginning December 2008; counsel filed a grievance in February 2009; fifth counsel appeared August 10, 2009 and moved for bond in December 2009.
- A January 25, 2010 citation hearing led to a specially set March 1, 2010 trial date; Butler filed a plea in bar and motion to dismiss January 27, 2010.
- At the hearing Butler testified to extensive court appearances, health problems in jail, and lost witnesses; the State presented testimony from a key witness about Butler’s statements.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss/plea in bar, noting unclean hands and relying on Bush’s testimony; Butler appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial delay was presumptively prejudicial | Butler contends the 32-month delay is presumptively prejudicial. | State argues delay not prejudicial or that court’s findings support no abuse. | Yes; 32-month delay is presumptively prejudicial, triggering Barker-Doggett. |
| Whether the Barker-Doggett four-factor balance demonstrates a speedy-trial violation | The delay, lack of reasons, and prejudice show denial of speedy trial. | State argues factors do not collectively show violation and that delay was not attributable to government negligence. | The balance weighs against the State; the delay and negligence justify relief. |
| Whether Butler’s assertion of the right to speedy trial was timely and effective | Butler’s letters and actions should be considered an assertion of the right. | Pro se demands while represented by counsel are ineffective; first viable demand was January 2010. | Butler’s pro se demands were not viable; counsel’s January 2010 motion was the first proper assertion, but the delay still weighs against the State. |
| What is the proper remedy for a speedy-trial violation | Court should remedy by dismissal with prejudice due to violation. | State may argue for other forms of relief depending on circumstances. | Dismissal of the indictment with prejudice; remand with direction to discharge and acquit Butler. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. United States, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes Barker-Doggett speedy-trial framework)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (delays and government negligence weigh in balancing)
- Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52 (2008) (Georgia presence of speedy-trial standard and prejudice considerations)
- Teasley v. State, 307 Ga.App. 153 (2010) (prejudice and delay in Barker-Doggett analysis; appellate review standards)
- Hayes v. State, 298 Ga.App. 338 (2009) (presumption of prejudice and factor analysis guidance)
- Moses v. State, 301 Ga.App. 315 (2009) (delay length and prejudice in Barker-Doggett context)