Gonzales v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 915
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Lionel Gonzales was indicted in 2004 for injury to a child and indecency with a child based on an alleged 2002 incident; an arrest warrant issued then but he was not arrested until April 2010 (≈6-year delay).
- After his 2010 arrest Gonzales moved to dismiss for violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; the trial court denied the motion; Gonzales later pleaded no contest to one count and received deferred adjudication.
- Gonzales appealed; this Court remanded for correct application of the prejudice standard; on remand the court of appeals found all Barker factors favored Gonzales and dismissed the indictment with prejudice.
- The State sought review here challenging the appellate court’s treatment of factual findings, extenuation/acquiescence, and whether the State rebutted presumed prejudice.
- This Court reviewed de novo the Barker factors (after deferring to supported historical findings) and held the unexplained six‑year delay, the State’s negligence (despite knowing Gonzales’s address), Gonzales’s timely assertion after arrest, and presumptive prejudice established a Sixth Amendment violation; the indictment was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gonzales) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six‑year delay triggered presumptive prejudice and a full Barker analysis | The delay between indictment and arrest (≈6 years) is presumptively prejudicial and warrants full Barker balancing | State conceded delay but argued trial-court findings show defendant acquiesced and the delay was at least partly due to defendant’s conduct | Court: Six‑year unexplained delay triggered presumptive prejudice; factor weighs heavily for Gonzales |
| Whether the State’s reason for delay justifies it | Gonzales: State offered no explanation; negligence weighs against State | State: Pointed to trial-court findings and Gonzales’s alleged avoidance of law enforcement (expired license, probation issues) | Court: State’s unexplained negligence (despite knowing address) weighs heavily against State |
| Whether Gonzales timely asserted his speedy‑trial right | Gonzales: He asserted his right promptly after arrest; he had no notice earlier | State: Trial court found Gonzales and parents knew or avoided detection, so he acquiesced | Court: Gonzales timely asserted after arrest; trial-court findings of knowledge/acquiescence not supported by record |
| Whether prejudice is presumed and whether State rebutted it | Gonzales: Length and State negligence presumptively impaired defense; State failed to rebut | State: Argued acquiescence and pointed to witnesses/evidence that might mitigate prejudice | Court: Presumption of prejudice under Doggett applies; State failed to persuasively rebut or show acquiescence; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice from excessive, negligent delay; burden shifts to State to rebut)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (Speedy Trial Clause applies after formal accusation; pre-indictment delay governed by statute of limitations)
- Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussing weight of delay and state negligence in Barker analysis)
- United States v. Molina-Solorio, 577 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2009) (presumed prejudice after lengthy delay; State failed to rebut)
- United States v. Cardona, 302 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2002) (timely assertion after arrest weighs for defendant when there was no notice of charges)