State v. Dale Lee Gillliland, 05-16-00547-CR

Gilliland was arrested July 20, 2011 (aggravated sexual assault of a child), released on bond, and not indicted until September 30, 2014 on a different charge (continuous sexual abuse, alleging offenses 2009–2011).
Total delay from arrest to trial setting was ~57 months (38 months pre‑indictment; 19 months post‑indictment). Gilliland was rearrested on the indictment in late 2014 and again released on bond.
The case was reset multiple times in 2015 and set for jury trial April 25, 2016. Gilliland filed a speedy‑trial request April 8, 2016 and a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial April 11, 2016.
At the hearing the State offered no explanation for the multi‑year delay in transferring the police file to the district attorney’s office; defense testified about limited pre‑indictment efforts to move the case and about prejudice (witnesses who moved overseas, family anxiety, employment loss after indictment).
The trial court granted dismissal; the State appealed. The court of appeals applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and reversed, concluding Gilliland’s late assertion of the speedy‑trial right outweighed other factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gilliland)	Held
Whether dismissal was required under the Sixth Amendment/Barker balancing test given ~57 months delay (focus on 38‑month pre‑indictment delay)	Delay insufficient to overcome defendant’s failure to timely assert right; Barker factors overall weigh against dismissal	Long, unexplained pre‑indictment delay and resulting prejudice (missing witnesses, family harm, anxiety) justify dismissal	Reversed trial court: Barker factors weigh against finding a speedy‑trial violation because Gilliland’s very late assertion (18 months after indictment; two weeks before trial) heavily favors the State

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishing four‑factor speedy trial balancing test)
Gonzalez v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801 (threshold presumptive prejudice and Barker framework)
Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (allocation of burdens and effect of delayed assertion by defendant)
Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (weight of a defendant’s timely assertion of speedy‑trial right)
Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (unexplained delay attributable to the State)
Sinclair v. State, 894 S.W.2d 437 (pre‑indictment diligence required to support dismissal)
Munoz v. State, 991 S.W.2d 818 (prejudice interests protected by the speedy‑trial right)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (pretrial delay harms and concerns)
Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (pre‑indictment delay significance)
Ortega v. State, 472 S.W.3d 779 (need to show due diligence to locate missing witnesses)