Davis v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 797
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Davis was convicted of felony escape in Texas after being brought back under the IADA following an Oklahoma escape and detention.
- IADA Article IV(c) required the trial to commence within 120 days of Davis’s arrival, with possible open court continuances for good cause.
- Davis arrived June 18, 2008; trial was set for October 6, 2008, with a potential deadline of October 16, 2008 absent continuances.
- An agreed extension pushed a date to October 13, 2008; the State sought and obtained a further continuance due to its chief witness’s hospitalization, with a record showing an open-court finding of good cause.
- On October 31, 2008, the State re-indicted Davis; the next reported setting was December 1, 2008, when voir dire occurred and a jury was selected.
- Defense objected to the November 4, 2008 continuance, noting IADA time limits; the record provides limited explanation for the continuance beyond the open-court colloquy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second continuance violated the IADA 120-day deadline | Davis argues the second continuance caused trial to start outside the IADA window. | State contends good cause supported the continuance and the record is insufficient to prove violation. | Record insufficient to prove IADA violation; dismissal reversed and remanded for remaining issues. |
| Whether Rule 44.4 remand was proper to fix the record | Davis contends remand to reconstruct good-cause record is appropriate. | State argues remand unnecessary; the court should not prejudge remaining issues. | Remand not required to dismiss; appellate record insufficient to establish abuse; case remanded for remaining issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (burden shifts to appellant to provide record showing trial court error)
- Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (automatic presence of court reporter; preservation of error when absent)
- Newman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 447 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (appellant bears burden to show trial court error on appeal)
- LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (remedies under Rule 44.4 for evidentiary/record deficiencies)
- King v. Brown, 8 F.3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1993) (re-indictment may constitute good cause for continuance under IADA)