255 So. 3d 1106
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Timrek Andrews was arrested after officers saw him place a baggie of alleged drugs in his mouth during a 2013 traffic stop; charged with misdemeanors (resisting, battery) and later a felony (obstruction).
- Initial municipal charges filed December 2013; numerous continuances and relocations of the case; a second bill of information in October 2015 added a felony and reasserted the misdemeanors.
- Many trial dates (Municipal and Criminal District Court) were continued repeatedly; the State sought multiple continuances in 2016–2017 while defendant repeatedly appeared and objected.
- On September 25, 2017, defendant appeared ready; State requested another continuance; trial court denied continuance and granted defendant’s motion to quash for violation of his constitutional speedy-trial right.
- State appealed; defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely (denied). Consolidated writ: defendant challenged a later magistrate decision refusing to quash a search warrant for medical records (writ denied).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Andrews' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting motion to quash for constitutional speedy-trial violation | Delay not presumptively prejudicial because felony was timely; many delays excusable; no constitutional violation | Nearly four-year delay (charged on misdemeanors early) presumptively prejudicial; State mostly responsible; actual and presumptive prejudice | Affirmed: length and circumstances (State delay, lost evidence, witness fading) triggered Barker factors and supported quash |
| Whether the State abandoned appeal for failure to timely lodge the record | State timely moved to appeal; district court personnel responsible for lodging record | Appeal should be dismissed as untimely/abandoned because record lodged late | Denied dismissal: motion for appeal timely; procedural duties to lodge record fall on court personnel |
| Whether trial court erred in denying State’s request to continue to prepare opposition to motion to quash | Denial deprived State of opportunity for a contradictory hearing and to prepare | Motion asserted constitutional speedy-trial claim; defendant bore burden; prior pattern of State delay justified immediate ruling | Denied: no abuse of discretion; State failed to show specific prejudice; constitutional-motion practice differs from statutory-prescription motions |
| Whether magistrate erred in refusing to quash search warrant and impose sanctions for State obtaining medical records while appeal pending | State may pursue investigation and obtain warrant in open case; magistrate lacked jurisdiction to grant relief while case on appeal | Warrant procedurally/legally defective; records protected; sanctions appropriate | Writ denied: magistrate lacked jurisdiction to act on criminal case on appeal; substantive challenge not sustained on that procedural posture |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for constitutional speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (excessive delay can presumptively prejudice the defense; impairment of defense is most serious prejudice)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1967) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantee applies to states)
- State v. Love, 847 So.2d 1198 (La. 2003) (standard of review and Barker adoption in Louisiana)
- State v. Reaves, 376 So.2d 136 (La. 1979) (adoption of Barker factors in Louisiana)
- State v. Skinner, 10 So.3d 1212 (La. 2009) (warrant required for investigatory search of medical/prescription records)
- State v. Noel, 151 So.3d 706 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (procedural allocation re: appellant's duty and court personnel to lodge record)
- State v. Mathews, 129 So.3d 1217 (La. 2013) (time not charged/under arrest excluded from speedy-trial calculation)