321 Ga. App. 25
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Williamson was charged July 27, 2011 with failure to maintain lane and two counts of DUI.
- Williamson filed a statutory demand for speedy trial on November 2, 2011 under OCGA § 17-7-170.
- On January 25, 2012, Williamson moved for discharge and acquittal alleging untimely demand and failure to try within required terms.
- The trial court ruled the demand untimely and denied the motion, then the denial was appealed.
- OCGA § 17-7-170 requires timely demand and, if no timely trial within two terms with impaneled juries, discharge results.
- The Court held the September 2011 term did not count toward triggering the two-term rule because no jury was impaneled; the November 2011 term was the first term available to try Williamson, with January 2012 as the next term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the speedy trial demand | Williamson contends timing complied with §17-7-170(a). | State contends timing untimely due to lack of impaneled jury in September term. | Demand timely filed; September term not counted. |
| Whether the September term counted for two-term rule | September term should count if a jury could be impaneled later in that term. | No impaneled jury during September term, so it does not count. | September term did not count; November term counted as next term. |
| Impact of jury availability on timing | Sufficient jurors were available to proceed in September term or November term. | Practical limitations and timing prevented timely trial within the two-term window. | No clear and convincing evidence that a qualifying jury existed in September term; thus timing preserved. |
| Effect of demand timing on discharge | Proper timely demand should trigger discharge if not tried in time. | Untimely if two-term window not properly met due to jury impanellment status. | Discharge not required; timely demand within two terms available for trial. |
| final outcome under OCGA § 17-7-170(b) | Williamson should be discharged due to untimely trial under the two-term rule. | State may proceed within the two-term window; discharge not appropriate. | Court affirmed denial of discharge and acquittal; trial could occur in November 2011 or January 2012. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nesmith v. State, 267 Ga. App. 530 (2004) (timeliness of demand without required immediate jury impanelment)
- Mize v. State, 262 Ga. 489 (1992) (timeliness depends on term timing; impanelment status not determinative of timeliness)
- Jones v. State, 305 Ga. App. 528 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion review; two-term rule explained)
- West v. State, 193 Ga. App. 117 (1989) (two-term triggering after demand when no timely trial)
- Macinnis v. State, 235 Ga. App. 732 (1998) (definition of jury panel and availability relevance)
- Fletcher v. State, 213 Ga. App. 401 (1994) (reasonable time for the State to prepare; late demand not forcing immediate trial)