Craig Porter v. State, 540 S.W.3d 178

In 2002 Cherita Thurman was found murdered; investigation initially yielded no suspect.
A 2013 CODIS hit linked Craig Porter to Thurman; Porter was arrested in January 2013 and indicted in March 2013.
Between 2013–2016 the case was repeatedly reset—many resets were requested or agreed to by Porter, and there were multiple changes in appointed counsel and a period of self-representation.
Porter filed a counsel-led motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial right in December 2015 but did not set it for hearing; the trial court heard and denied the motion on August 8, 2016.
Trial began August 8, 2016; a jury convicted Porter of manslaughter and the court assessed punishment at life imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Porter’s Sixth Amendment/Texas constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated	Porter argued the 41-month delay between indictment and trial denied his speedy-trial right and warranted dismissal	State argued most delay was attributable to Porter (requested resets, counsel conflicts, requests for testing) and Porter did not timely assert or show prejudice	Court held no violation: delay triggered inquiry but majority of delay was caused or acquiesced to by Porter; Porter failed to timely assert the right or demonstrate specific prejudice, so dismissal was not warranted

Munoz v. State, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings on speedy-trial motions)
Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (review in light of record before court when ruling)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (application of Barker factors in Texas and burdens on parties)
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2009) (delay caused by defense weighs against defendant)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1967) (incorporation of Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right to the states)
Hopper v. State, 520 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (failure to timely assert right and lack of particularized prejudice undermine speedy-trial claim)
Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (no right to hybrid representation; pro se motions filed while represented may be disregarded)
McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (need for specific evidence of prejudice from delay in cold cases)
Starks v. State, 266 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008) (pretrial incarceration credit can mitigate oppressive incarceration argument)