Richardson v. State
311 Ga. App. 369
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Richardson appeals a trial court denial of his motion for discharge and acquittal based on a speedy-trial violation.
- The trial court's order denying the motion contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- The appellate court cannot determine whether Barker v. Wingo was properly applied due to missing findings.
- The court noted Barker factors were discussed at the hearing but not incorporated into an express order.
- The court vacates the judgment and remands for an order with proper Barker-based findings and conclusions.
- Although Barker factors were mentioned, lack of transcripted and verbal findings prevents meaningful review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the speedy-trial motion was properly supported by Barker findings | Richardson argues the order lacks Barker-based findings to review. | State contends Barker factors were considered, but not properly memorialized in the order. | Remand for proper Barker findings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (balancing test for speedy-trial rights requiring explicit findings)
- Moore v. State, 309 Ga.App. 519 (Ga. App. 2011) (requires sufficient findings to review Barker analysis)
- Higgenbottom v. State, 288 Ga. 429 (Ga. 2011) (addressed scope of Barker review and findings requirements)
- State v. Porter, 288 Ga. 524 (Ga. 2011) (emphasized need for proper Barker findings on appeal)
- Goddard v. State, 310 Ga. App. 2 (Ga. App. 2011) (discussed sufficiency of trial court findings for review)
- Butler v. State, 309 Ga.App. 86 (Ga. App. 2011) (denial of motion reviewable when order includes transcript or explicit findings)