United States v. Hicks, 779 F.3d 1163

Hicks was convicted on three counts after a conditional guilty plea: drug conspiracy with a five+ kilogram cocaine quantity, felon in possession of firearms, and possession of body armor by a felon; sentenced to 240 months.
The firearm and body armor charges stem from a 2005 Denver shooting; Hicks, a prior felon, possessed both items.
The narcotics charge arose from a 2007 undercover drug operation in which Hicks discarded a bag of cocaine during a pursuit; later seized.
Indictment occurred on April 25, 2007; the speedy-trial issues center on delay from 2012 toward trial resolution.
In July–September 2012, the district court ruled on pending motions; August 2, 2012 motion sought a trial-setting conference; November 15 Hicks moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds; district court denied both motions.
Hicks pled guilty February 4, 2014; on appeal he challenged the denials of speedy-trial motions and raised a Sixth Amendment claim and a plea-negotiations issue; the panel remanded for dismissal-without/without-prejudice determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hicks's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights were violated	Hicks asserts delay violated Sixth Amendment.	Government contends delay not prejudicial and justified.	Sixth Amendment rights not violated.
Whether the Speedy Trial Act was violated	Hicks contends clock ran beyond 70 days due to improper exclusions.	Government argues exclusions were proper and no violation occurred.	Speedy Trial Act was violated; district court erred in denial.
Whether the district court violated prohibitions on plea negotiations	Hicks contends improper judicial participation in plea discussions.	Govt contends no improper participation occurred.	Not addressed on the merits; remanded for dismissal decision first.
Remedy for the Speedy Trial Act violation	Hicks seeks dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice as appropriate.	Government opposes automatic prejudice dismissal.	Remanded to determine whether dismissals should be with or without prejudice.

Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (presumption of prejudice related to government-caused delay)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (balancing test for speedy-trial Right)
United States v. Banks, 761 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2014) ( Sixth Amendment speedy-trial de novo review; timelines)
United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458 (10th Cir. 2006) (delay attributable to defendant weighs against him)
Margheim, 770 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2014) (pro forma/administrative motions toll only 30 days when under advisement)
United States v. Barnes, 159 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 1998) (scheduling-motion no hearing; 30-day tolling where fully resolved)
United States v. Smith, 569 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes administrative motions from substantive ones)
Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (defense-prejudice considerations in speedy-trial analysis)
Loughrin, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2013) (administrative vs substantive motions in speedy-trial context)