State v. Anthony Leon Mathews Sr.
09-16-00476-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2012 Anthony Mathews was stopped, drugs were found in a rented car, he was arrested and bonded out the same day; grand jury indicted him May 2013.
- Mathews did not appear again until April 2016; multiple docket calls in 2016 followed, and counsel appeared for Mathews in August 2016.
- Defense moved in Dec. 2016 to compel a speedy trial or dismiss for Sixth Amendment violation; hearing held Dec. 7, 2016.
- The State’s only witness was the district clerk, who testified a deputy clerk failed to send notices and the case fell off the docket from 2013–Apr.2016; the State offered no explanation beyond clerical error.
- Mathews and his wife testified they lived at the same address since 2012 and were not notified of court proceedings; rental records for the car and a recording of the stop were unavailable or unproven to be available.
- Trial court found the delays violated Mathews’ speedy-trial right and dismissed the indictment; the State appealed and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mathews) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the total delay violated Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right | Delay largely due to negligence, not weighty; Mathews didn’t demand speedy trial promptly | ~4-year delay prejudiced defense; he only learned of indictment in 2016 and lost evidence | Affirmed dismissal — Barker factors balance in favor of Mathews |
| Who bears blame for delays and how heavily to weigh them | Delays were clerical negligence and some normal defense-preparation time | Many months/years attributable to State (indictment delay, clerk failures) | Court found ~40+ months of inexcusable delay attributable to the State; negligence weighs against State but less than deliberate delay |
| Whether Mathews timely asserted speedy-trial right | Mathews should have demanded speedily when first appearing Apr.2016 | Counsel signaled intention to seek dismissal in Oct.2016 and filed motions Dec.2016; appearance without counsel explains non-assertion | Court accepted that counsel’s post-April actions and December motion satisfy assertion factor |
| Whether Mathews was prejudiced by delay | State points to police affidavit and lab report (not in hearing) showing no prejudice | Loss/unavailability of rental records, possible unusable recording, and faded memory impair defense | Court held prejudice shown (impairment to defense), and State failed to rebut at hearing; fourth Barker factor favors Mathews |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (constitutional test balancing length, reason, assertion, prejudice for speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (length-of-delay threshold for triggering Barker inquiry)
- Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (appellate standard and weighing of speedy-trial factors in Texas)
- Munoz v. State, 991 S.W.2d 818 (discussion of prejudice standard; not required to show actual prejudice)
- Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883 (measuring delay from arrest/formal accusation; courts consider one-year delays significant)
- Turner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 133 (burden on State to justify delay; presumption of no justification if not shown)
- Emery v. State, 881 S.W.2d 702 (State must justify unexpected delays)
- Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (weighing inexcusable delay against the State)
- Davis v. State, 227 S.W.3d 733 (appellate courts limited to evidence presented to trial court when reviewing factual determinations)