State v. Shirley
311 Ga. App. 141
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Shirley was arrested September 20, 2006 and indicted for cocaine trafficking in October 2006.
- Shirley moved to dismiss for delay in prosecution on February 17, 2010; evidentiary hearings followed in July 2010.
- CI identity and related details were not disclosed to Shirley until February 2010 despite prior orders.
- Judge Campbell ordered CI disclosure by February 18, 2010; the state did not comply for years.
- The trial court concluded a presumptively prejudicial delay occurred and weighed the delay heavily against the state, granting dismissal on September 8, 2010.
- On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Barker v. Wingo and adopting a balancing analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay was presumptively prejudicial | Shirley (State) contends delay not inherently prejudicial. | Shirley argues delay was unusually long and prejudicial under Barker. | Presumptively prejudicial delay established |
| Whether the delay was caused by the state or Shirley | State contends caseload and non-deliberate factors caused delay. | Shirley argues the state deliberately delayed to gain advantage. | Delay attributed to state; weight against state supported |
| Whether Shirley timely asserted the right to speedy trial | State argues prolonged silence weighed against Shirley. | Shirley sought relief via discovery orders and calendar settings. | Mitigating circumstances found; not weighed against Shirley |
| Whether Shirley suffered prejudice due to delay | Prejudice must be shown to prevail; delay alone not enough. | Presumed prejudice from delay supports relief. | Presumption of prejudice established; defense not rebutted |
| Whether the Barker four-factor balance requires dismissal | Balance favors dismissal given the serial delays and improper tactic. | Balance could be otherwise weighed; not always automatic dismissal. | Totality of factors favored dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. United States, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Porter v. State, 288 Ga. 524 (Ga. 2011) (reaffirms Barker balancing and prejudice considerations)
- Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52 (Ga. 2008) (presumptive prejudice framework and case-specific weighting)
- Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338 (Ga. App. 2009) (deliberate or negligent delays weighed against state)
- Ivory v. State, 304 Ga. App. 859 (Ga. App. 2010) (discovery obligations and readiness considerations in speedy-trial analysis)
- State v. White, 282 Ga. 859 (Ga. 2008) (mitigating factors in Barker factor weighting)
- Ingram v. United States, 446 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2006) (federal Barker framework cited for prejudice and balancing)