Henson, Kevin Ray
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1313
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Henson stabbed a friend 11 times and was charged with aggravated assault on May 9, 2008.
- The case was reset multiple times over three years due to difficulties with counsel, with counsel appointed January 30, 2009.
- The State filed an agreed motion for continuance on January 2, 2010 for a sick witness; the judge granted it and the case was reset thereafter.
- The case was reset seven more times before trial, totaling 25 resets; the appellant signed every reset and never objected to delays.
- The appellant did not raise a speedy-trial issue in trial court; the first raise occurred on appeal, where the court of appeals affirmed conviction.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held preservation of speedy-trial claims is required for appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is preservation required for speedy-trial claims to permit Barker analysis? | State contends preservation is required for appellate review. | Henson argues preservation is not necessary for a speedy-trial claim to be reviewed. | Preservation is required; issue affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor ad hoc balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993) (preservation principle for most rights; exceptions exist for fundamental rights)
- Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Cr. App. 2003) (preservation rule for non-fundamental rights; exceptions noted)
- McKinney v. State, 505 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Cr. App. 1974) (early discussion on preservation vs. waiver for speedy-trial claims)
- Tex. v. Barker, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (see Barker v. Wingo)