State v. Parrish
149 N.M. 506
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Terry Parrish was charged with aggravated DUI and license plate lamp violation; six-month rule and speedy-trial rights at issue.
- Arrest occurred November 24, 2006; released with restrictions, including travel limits and no alcohol.
- Charges filed in magistrate court and then refiled in district court; magistrate charges dismissed two days later.
- Trial delays occurred due to discovery, counsel substitution, and judge reassignment; trial set for Aug 2, 2007 but no notice given to either party.
- District court dismissed on speedy-trial grounds on Sep 24, 2007; state appealed and appellate court reversed in 2008, remanding for further proceedings.
- On May 7, 2008 the State sought trial; trial scheduled July 10, 2008; Parrish moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds; district court dismissed by oral ruling and written order on Oct 17, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time during appeal is excluded for speedy-trial analysis | Parrish not under indictment; time on appeal should count | Delay while on appeal should be excluded under Loud Hawk | Time on appeal excluded; delay not counted against State |
| Whether delay was presumptively prejudicial under Garza guidelines | Delay over Garza threshold presumes prejudice | Delay too short or not prejudicial beyond threshold | Delay 370 days after exclusions is presumptively prejudicial; Barker factors apply |
| Whether the State's reasons for delay justify continued proceedings | Delay due to court reassignment, discovery, and preparation was justifiable | Some delays were administrative or negligent and prejudicial | Most delays neutral or negligent; administrative delays weigh slightly in Parrish's favor |
| Whether Parrish asserted his speedy-trial right in a timely and forceful manner | Assertion occurred by opposing extension and at trial, but not as a formal written demand | Oral and near-trial objections suffice; assertion timely enough | Assertion was not timely/forceful; weight given only slight in Parrish's favor |
| Whether Parrish suffered particularized prejudice from the delay | Delay caused operational disadvantages and anxiety | No specific, particularized prejudice established | No cognizable particularized prejudice; prejudice factor not weighty |
Key Cases Cited
- Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (time after dismissal and appeal not charged against speedy-trial rights)
- MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (restraint on liberty governs when charges are pending; not during appeal)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Garza, 146 P.3d 499 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2009) (one-year presumptive prejudice threshold for simple cases; Garza guidelines applied)
- Maddox, 145 P.3d 1254 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2008) (foundation for evaluating speedy-trial rights under NM law)
- Valencia, 224 P.3d 659 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2010) (case-by-case analysis of Barker factors in speedy-trial claims)
- McCrary, 675 P.2d 120 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1984) (charges dropped in good faith and later reinstated; effect on speedy-trial timing)
- Hill, 138 N.M. 693, 125 P.3d 1175 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2005) (delay during appellate review analyzed under due process when appropriate)
- Wittgenstein, 119 N.M. 565, 893 P.2d 461 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1995) (delay during judicial review considered unless unreasonable delay by state or court)