Newman v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 207
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Newman filed an unsworn motion to dismiss his intoxication-assault case on speedy-trial grounds under the Sixth Amendment,
- The motion claimed an approximately eight-year delay since indictment, but the motion was unsworn and no reporter’s record of a hearing was in the appellate record
- The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, though no reporter’s record of that hearing exists in the appellate record
- On direct appeal, the court of appeals refused to consider the unsworn factual assertions and relied on a sparse record to apply Barker v. Wingo factors
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to decide whether the record was sufficient to sustain a speedy-trial ruling and reversed the court of appeals, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record suffices to show a speedy-trial violation | Newman | State | No; record insufficiency warrants affirmance of trial ruling |
| Whether an unsworn motion alone can support a speedy-trial claim on appeal | Newman | State | Unsown motions do not themselves prove the claim; a proper record is required |
| Whether Barker factors were properly considered given the record | Newman | State | Record inadequate to evaluate Barker factors; reversal not justified on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (tests four-factor speedy-trial inquiry)
- Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (unsworn motions generally not self-proving; need record)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (burden to present a record on appeal for trial errors)
- Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (usual burden to show properly preserved reversible error via record)
- Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (when a defendant loses on speedy-trial motion, appellate presumes trial judge resolved disputed facts in State’s favor)
- Newman v. State, 303 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (sparse record allowed appellate consideration of speedy-trial issue despite lacking testimonial evidence)