State v. Lisa Lou Ritter
531 S.W.3d 366
Tex. App.2017Background
- Lisa Lou Ritter was indicted for securing execution of a document by deception on July 19, 2005; she posted bond the next day.
- Minimal case activity occurred for over a decade: intermittent docket calls, bond forfeitures, and long periods of inactivity; first appointed counsel (Carpenter) in October 2009, then Goodwin (2015), then Thomas (Dec. 2016).
- From indictment to the motion to dismiss (Feb. 2017) elapsed ~11.5 years; substantial portions of the delay were unexplained by the State and attributable to prosecutorial low priority and inactivity.
- Ritter asserted a speedy-trial claim only after Thomas’s appointment; she testified she had little or no meaningful contact with her prior appointed attorneys and did not know about speedy-trial remedies.
- The trial court held a hearing, found a Sixth Amendment/Texas Constitution speedy-trial violation, dismissed the indictment with prejudice, and the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 11.5-year delay violated Ritter's federal and state speedy-trial rights | Ritter: extreme delay, State negligence, prior counsel ineffective or negligent in failing to assert speedy-trial right; prejudice presumed | State: delay due to low prosecutorial priority, plea negotiations, and some delay attributable to defendant (missed appearances) | Court: Held violation. Delay triggered Barker; State’s negligence and unexplained ~9.75 years weigh heavily against State; Ritter’s late assertion mitigated by prior counsel's inaction; presumption of prejudice unrebutted; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (presumption of prejudice where delay is caused by government negligence)
- Gonzales v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801 (Texas application of Barker factors and review standards)
- Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (delay thresholds and weight of factors in speedy-trial analysis)
- Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (use of Barker factors under Texas law)
- Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (timeliness and weight of defendant's assertion of speedy-trial right)
- Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883 (competency of counsel can mitigate defendant's failure to assert speedy-trial right)
- Munoz v. State, 991 S.W.2d 818 (procedural presumptions and appellate review in speedy-trial claims)
- Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (filing for dismissal vs demanding trial can affect speedy-trial analysis)