Lorenzo Tarver v. Jacquelyn Banks, 541 F. App'x 434

In June 2004 police found 31.8 kg of marijuana and firearms in Lorenzo Tarver’s home; the property lay within 1,500 feet of a daycare, triggering Mississippi Code § 41-29-142(1) penalty enhancement.
Grand jury indictment was delayed until January 2005 (lab results); trial did not occur until June 2006 after multiple continuances and counsel changes — roughly a two-year delay from arrest to trial.
At sentencing (after conviction for possession with intent to sell) an officer testified, without objection, that the distance to the daycare was 899 feet; the trial court found proximity beyond a reasonable doubt and doubled Tarver’s sentence to 60 years.
Tarver appealed to the Mississippi courts raising speedy-trial and other claims; the state appellate courts and Mississippi Supreme Court rejected his claims (res judicata/merit denial).
Tarver sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief; the Fifth Circuit granted a COA on speedy-trial and Apprendi claims and affirmed denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial violation (Sixth Amendment)	Tarver: ~2-year delay between arrest and trial violated his speedy-trial rights and prejudiced his defense (lost witnesses, anxiety).	State: Delay was partly neutral and largely caused by defense counsel’s scheduling/unavailability; no demonstrable prejudice to Tarver.	Affirmed — state court reasonably found Barker factors did not show a violation; petitioner failed to rebut factual findings by clear and convincing evidence.
Sentence enhancement under Apprendi	Tarver: The proximity finding increasing his sentence was made by the judge at sentencing, not the jury, so sentencing violated Apprendi v. New Jersey.	State: Any Apprendi error was harmless because the indictment alleged the protected-area enhancement and the proximity evidence (899 feet) was uncontroverted.	Affirmed — state court reasonably could conclude any Apprendi error was harmless; no unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (criminal sentencing increase by judge on facts not found by jury violates Sixth Amendment)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference standard under AEDPA for state-court decisions)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (limitations on federal habeas relief and deference to state court findings)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas harmless-error standard requiring actual prejudice)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (applies Brecht standard on habeas for trial errors)
Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861 (5th Cir.) (federal habeas review limited to state court decision, not its written opinion)