183 So. 3d 898
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- McCormick was arrested for robbery on Jan. 16, 2006, indicted Oct. 9, 2006, and waived arraignment Jan. 22, 2007; initial trial was set for May 7, 2007.
- McCormick failed to appear for the May 7, 2007 trial; a judgment nisi and later final judgment forfeiting bond were entered and the court ordered his arrest.
- A bondsman surrendered McCormick in March 2008 and records showed McCormick incarcerated in Georgia with a projected release; Mississippi filed a detainer and ultimately extradited him in July 2013.
- After return, McCormick filed discovery, speedy-trial requests, and motions; multiple continuances were granted, several at McCormick’s request, and trial ultimately began Sept. 9, 2014.
- McCormick was convicted of robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to 15 years; he appealed claiming statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory 270-day speedy-trial rule (Miss. Code §99-17-1) was violated | McCormick: more than 270 days elapsed from arraignment to trial, so statutory right violated | State: majority of delay attributable to McCormick (fleeing jurisdiction, continuances, waiver); periods not chargeable to State | Court held no statutory violation — most delay charged to McCormick and he waived speedy-trial rights via continuances |
| Whether constitutional speedy-trial right (Barker balancing) was violated | McCormick: excessive delay (2006–2014) presumptively prejudicial; asserted right; defense impaired by changed scene | State: delay largely caused by defendant (flight, incarceration in GA, continuances); some delay due to plea negotiations | Court held no constitutional violation after Barker analysis — delay attributable to defendant, asserted right considered, asserted prejudice not shown |
| Whether State must account for sheriff’s/bondsman knowledge of defendant’s whereabouts | McCormick: State should be charged because sheriff/bondsman had surrender notice in 2008 | State: although sheriff had notice, defendant made no speedy-trial demand while in GA, so State not obligated to act | Court held sheriff’s knowledge is imputed to State but because McCormick did not demand a speedy trial while incarcerated in GA, those delays were not chargeable to State |
| Whether defense prejudice existed from passage of time | McCormick: changes to robbery location and passage of time impaired ability to defend | State: witness identified defendant and key evidence existed; defendant responsible for delay | Court held prejudice not shown — defendant responsible for bulk of delay and claim of impairment unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLoach v. State, 722 So. 2d 512 (Miss. 1998) (standard of review for speedy-trial determinations)
- Manix v. State, 895 So. 2d 167 (Miss. 2005) (two-step statutory speedy-trial analysis)
- Adams v. State, 583 So. 2d 165 (Miss. 1991) (how to count days for statutory speedy-trial period)
- Sharp v. State, 786 So. 2d 372 (Miss. 2001) (allocating delay responsibility and continuance effects)
- Cressionnie v. State, 797 So. 2d 289 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (imputing sheriff knowledge to State)
- Bridgeman v. State, 58 So. 3d 1208 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (state responsibility for local law-enforcement knowledge)
- Summers v. State, 914 So. 2d 245 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (waiver of speedy-trial rights by continuance)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for constitutional speedy-trial claims)
- Stark v. State, 911 So. 2d 447 (Miss. 2005) (application of Barker in Mississippi)
- Smith v. State, 550 So. 2d 406 (Miss. 1989) (delay exceeding eight months is presumptively prejudicial)
- Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797 (Miss. 2006) (when continuances justify delay)
- Jefferson v. State, 818 So. 2d 1099 (Miss. 2002) (prejudice factors for speedy-trial analysis)