Rhodes v. State
2015 WY 60
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Appellant Marty Wayne Rhodes lived with the victim (Tanya Van Patten's daughter) after she moved in December 2011; relations deteriorated and Rhodes moved out in April 2012.
- On May 22, 2012, while Rhodes was drinking, the 14-year-old victim testified he repeatedly pulled down her shirt, exposed and grabbed her breasts, and forced her to the floor; photographic bruising corroborated injury.
- The State charged Rhodes June 5, 2012; those charges were dismissed voluntarily and new charges were filed October 29, 2012 and amended November 9, 2012; Rhodes was re-arraigned December 3, 2012 and remained jailed throughout proceedings.
- Rhodes moved to dismiss for violation of W.R.Cr.P. 48 and constitutional speedy-trial rights; the district court denied the motion.
- Trial began May 13, 2018; a jury convicted Rhodes of child abuse and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor; he received consecutive sentences totaling 17–20 years and appealed.
- On appeal Rhodes argued (1) denial of speedy trial (Rule 48 and Sixth Amendment), (2) insufficiency of evidence for third-degree sexual abuse, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rhodes's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether W.R.Cr.P. 48 speedy-trial time ran from original arraignment or began anew after refiling | Rule 48 should not reset after dismissal/refiling because that lets the State evade the Rule and hold defendant indefinitely | Precedent treats refiling as starting a new Rule 48 period; here the re-arraignment-to-trial interval was within 180 days | Court declined to depart from precedent: speedy-trial period begins anew after refiling; Rhodes did not prevail on Rule 48 claim |
| Whether Rhodes's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated | Delay (351 days from first charge to conviction) and refiling caused prejudice (loss of family, job, unavailable brother witness) | Delay not presumptively prejudicial; reasons for delay were ordinary negligence; Rhodes failed to show unusual anxiety or impairment of defense | Applying Barker factors, court found no constitutional violation—Rhodes failed to show specific prejudice impairing his defense |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for third-degree sexual abuse (taking "immodest, immoral or indecent liberties") | Acts were not sexual in nature and alleged sequence of events was impossible as testified | Victim testimony, photographic bruising, history of abuse and mother's statements supported sexual-motive inference | Evidence was sufficient; jury could reasonably find Rhodes took indecent liberties with the minor |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (no written speedy-trial demand; no child-psych expert; failure to investigate alleged recordings) | Counsel’s omissions were deficient and prejudicial | Either omissions were not prejudicial or record does not show counsel acted deficiently; no proof recordings existed or expert necessity | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claims: filing a written demand would not have prevented refiling; no showing an expert was available and necessary; no record evidence recordings existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. State, 326 P.3d 883 (Wyo. 2014) (speedy-trial analysis standard)
- Hall v. State, 911 P.2d 1364 (Wyo. 1996) (Rule 48 period begins anew after refiling)
- Graham v. State, 247 P.3d 872 (Wyo. 2011) (court’s discretion on dismissal under Rule 48(a))
- Mascarenas v. State, 315 P.3d 656 (Wyo. 2013) (constitutional speedy-trial tacking and prejudice analysis)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor Sixth Amendment speedy trial test)
- Boucher v. State, 245 P.3d 342 (Wyo. 2011) (prejudice and anxiety not ordinarily sufficient without extraordinary showing)
- Wilkerson v. State, 386 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)