Redford v. the State
335 Ga. App. 682
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Mike Redford was arrested Oct 2013 and indicted on four counts of aggravated stalking.
- Redford, proceeding pro se, filed multiple motions including a demand for a speedy trial on April 8, 2014.
- Redford had been represented by counsel at a February 26, 2014 bond hearing; counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted May 7, 2014.
- The trial court denied Redford’s pro se speedy-trial demand, finding it was filed while he was represented by counsel and was not properly served on the court.
- Redford appealed the pretrial denial; the Court of Appeals granted discretionary review and affirmed the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Redford’s pro se speedy-trial demand valid though he had counsel? | Redford contended his April 8 filing should be effective. | State/trial court argued a pro se filing is ineffective while represented. | Demand invalid because a pro se demand filed while represented has no legal effect. |
| Did Redford comply with OCGA § 17-7-170 service requirements? | Redford asserted he sent the demand to both judge and prosecutor. | State/trial court maintained there was no proof service on the judge; certificate showed service only on the State. | Trial court’s finding of lack of service was not clearly erroneous; failure to serve justified denial. |
| Is hybrid representation (co-counsel + self) permissible here? | Redford had sought to proceed pro se with co-counsel. | State relied on precedent disallowing hybrid representation. | No right to hybrid representation; pro se filing while represented ineffective. |
| Was pretrial denial of statutory speedy-trial demand appealable? | Redford appealed the pretrial denial. | State did not contest appealability; court relied on precedent. | Pretrial denial is appealable; court reached merits and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaefer v. State, 238 Ga. App. 594 (1999) (a pro se speedy-trial demand filed while defendant is represented by counsel has no legal effect)
- Works v. State, 301 Ga. App. 108 (2009) (trial court may deny a pro se speedy-trial demand filed while defendant had counsel)
- Liembach v. State, 251 Ga. App. 589 (2001) (defendant must strictly comply with OCGA § 17-7-170 filing and service requirements)
- Williams v. State, 258 Ga. App. 367 (2002) (trial court’s finding of lack of service of a speedy-trial demand is reviewed for clear error)
- Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357 (2014) (defendant may directly appeal pretrial denial of a statutory speedy-trial demand)