United States v. Tyrone Hines
694 F.3d 112
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Hines was arrested March 9, 2010 and charged with three counts of bank robbery/attempted bank robbery.
- The Speedy Trial Act (STA) requires indictment within 30 days and trial within 70 days (90 days for pretrial detainees) with excluded periods under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).
- Two STA exclusions were granted (April 7, May 4) to permit plea negotiations and a mental health evaluation, extending the indictment deadline to June 7.
- Indictment returned June 3 charging three counts; Hines was arraigned June 16 and pleaded not guilty.
- Defense counsel questioned how the two exclusions affected indictment and trial deadlines; the court later evaluated counsel’s explanations.
- Trial began October 26, 2010; jury convicted on all counts; Hines was sentenced March 30, 2011 to concurrent terms of 132 months and three years’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| STA indictment timing waiver applies | Hines argues the indictment was untimely and the court failed to justify the exclusions. | Government contends Hines waived the tardy-indictment issue under 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) and the record supports the exclusions. | Waiver applies; defendant forfeited timely-indictment challenge under § 3162(a)(2). |
| Duty to order competency hearing ex mero motu | Hines asserts the district court should have ordered sua sponte a competency hearing. | Government contends no reasonable cause to believe incompetence; evaluations showed competence. | No abuse of discretion; record showed no competency issues. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement at sentencing | Hines contends the 2-point enhancement for obstruction was improper given conflicting findings about timing of the confession. | Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Hines lied about the interview date. | Upheld; enhancement proper based on finding of deliberate falsehood. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. United States, 324 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (statutory interpretation of STA waiver provisions)
- United States v. Bittle, 699 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (waiver can apply to indictments as well as trials)
- United States v. Taylor, 497 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (waiver rules under § 3162(a)(2).)
- United States v. Spagnuolo, 469 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (waiver of speedy-indictment rights under § 3162(a)(2).)
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (failure to move for dismissal before trial results in waiver.)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (S. Ct. 2006) (retrospective waiver under § 3162(a)(2) valid; prospective waivers invalid.)
- United States v. Perez, 603 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (competency standard for standing trial.)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (establishes standard for competence to stand trial.)