Johnson v. State
313 Ga. App. 895
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Johnson was arrested on November 8, 2007, and appointed indigent defense shortly after; his initial attorney could not continue due to co-defendant representation.
- A speedy-trial demand was filed pro se by Johnson on November 30, 2007 and later filed by the clerk on December 6, 2007; counsel was appointed to represent Johnson thereafter.
- Johnson’s counsel changed multiple times: Schuder (appointed December 2007; withdrew January 2009) and Turner (appointed March 2009; later withdrew December 2009).
- Johnson was indicted on January 5, 2009; Turner’s withdrawal left Johnson continuing on trial calendars with other counsel and pro se demands in 2009.
- A series of continuances and delays occurred through 2010, with Johnson filing a motion to dismiss/plea in bar on July 8, 2010 based on speedy-trial concerns; the trial court denied, and Johnson appealed.
- The trial court’s Barker analysis on remand will require proper findings; the appellate court vacates and remands for reconsideration due to errors in the initial Barker factor application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay was presumptively prejudicial | Johnson | State | Presumptive prejudice established; remanded for proper Barker analysis |
| Whether delay was primarily caused by Johnson or the State | Johnson | State | Remand required to reassess causes of delay with correct record evidence |
| Whether Johnson properly asserted the right to a speedy trial | Johnson | State | Pro se demands weighed against Johnson; remand to reassess under proper standards |
| Whether Johnson suffered prejudice from the delay | Johnson | State | Prejudice assessment must be redone; remand to address specific harms (incarceration, anxiety, defense impairment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes Barker four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice and balancing framework)
- Thaxton v. State, 311 Ga.App. 260 (2011) (Georgia application of Barker-Doggett factors; timing and weighing)
- Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52 (2008) (four-factor analysis and weight of delays against state)
- Ditman v. State, 301 Ga.App. 187 (2009) (prejudice and preservation of alibi and witness issues)
- Howard v. State, 307 Ga.App. 822 (2011) (pro se speedy-trial demands filed while represented are ineffective)
- Porter v. State, 288 Ga. 524 (2011) (affirmative guidance on remand for proper Barker analysis)
- Reimers v. State, 310 Ga.App. 887 (2011) (remand for proper factual findings and legal analysis)
- Simmons v. State, 304 Ga.App. 39 (2010) (consideration of the defendant’s asserted speedy-trial rights)
- Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969) (framework for evaluating prejudice in speedy-trial context)