*1 unpersuasive. speculation disrup- examined Kimithi and find it court’s that will be appellant in that case repeatedly hearing is resumed. This tive when rupted progress. the trial while it was in permitted. cannot be in the instant case was ex- trial court RE- judgment cluded from the courtroom because of her the cause is REMANDED for VERSED and actions while the court was in recess. a new trial. Allen, also relies on Illinois v. 337, 1057, U.S. S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d wherein the court held:
“It is essential to proper administra-
tion of justice order dignity,
and decorum be the hallmarks of all cоurt proceedings country. flagrant in our Pinkney McLEAN, Appellant, William disregard in the courtroom of elementary standards of proper conduct should nоt and cannot be tolerated. We believe trial STATE of
judges disruptive, confronted with contu- macious, defiant stubbornly defendants must be sufficient discretion to Cоurt of Appeals meet the circumstances of each case. No Fort Worth. maintaining appro- formula for priate courtroom atmosphere will be best
in all situations. We think there are at least three constitutionally permissible Discretionary Review Refused ways judge for a trial to handlе an ob- Nov. streperous like Allen: bind gag thereby keeping him present; contempt; cite him for
take him out of the courtroom until he
promises properly.” to conduct himself
The court in the instant case resorted
none suggested of the methods Su-
preme Rather, in Court Allen. the court
simply barred the from the court-
room while a testifying.
Further, there is in the nothing record indi-
cating that the appellant engaged disrup-
tive behavior while hearing was in
progress. The court merely assumed that upon
based the appellant’s during conduct recess, unruly she wоuld become
disruptive hearing when the was resumed.
In view of the above statutory mentioned requirements,
and constitutional we hold the trial court committed reversible by proceeding
error in the appellant’s invol-
untary contrary holding absence. A would the exclusion
permit proposed patients
from involuntary hearing commitment prior disruptive
because of their behavior recess, but becаuse of the trial *2 Worth, Hill, appellant. Fort for
Tom E. J. and James Atty., Dist. Curry, Tim Worth, Heinemann, Fort Atty., Asst. Dist. appellee. for HUGHES, and HOL- BROWN Before MAN, JJ.
OPINION HOLMAN, Justice. conviction
This is from appeal threat, a A misdemeanor. 22.07(a)(3). The Penаl Code V.T.C.A. county year assessed punishment hundred dollar jail, probated, and a five remand, with instruc- fine. We reverse and tions. with contention agree appellant’s
We comply did not that his motion Speedy Trial be granted. indictment should dismiss the prepar- required The Act the State of the com- within 90 ed the criminal action mencement of 32A.02, 1(2). sec. appellant. V.A.C.C.P. art. 2,1980, when began The action arrested, and was first set for appellant was later. more thаn pretrial conference pretrial At first filed a motion dismiss com- not indictment because plied with the stamp Although the affixed date clear, the сourt clerk not “ready” was filed initial announcement The announce on either March or 19. compli ment prima was a State, ance with the Barfield (Tex.Cr.App.1979). S.W.2d 538 clear, however, that a made Barfield fa- rebut the may the State cie with evidence for trial within actually prepared That evi the Act. source, including from may dence responsible for of those cross-examination trial, and the State’s case may reversed, consist of evidеnce that the did Judgment and the indictment available, have a so that the and the appellant ordered dismissed State was not charged. the casе. At the hearing OPINION ON MOTION FOR *3 dismiss, to 26, 1981, March four assistant REHEARING district attorneys testified. Both in its motion for original brief and The first was prepared the assistant who that, rehearing, argues the aside from State the case for its presentation grand to the the court in prosecutors assigned to the
jury. She testified that from the date she tried, was the district presented the grand case to the jury, within attorney’s staff had other members who the days, the State would it ready try would have been to the case if have However, been ready for trial. she had been to them. It was not. assigned was not one of prosecutors assigned the to Pam attorney Assistant district Moore try cases in the court the pendency testified that her work in the of the case against appellant. the presentation grand cаse for to was The first prosecutor trial testified that ready sufficient for the to be for trial State during the time assigned try he was to previous experi- in the courtroom. She below, cases in the court he was unaware prosecutor, ence as a but while this case there a was case pending аppellant, assigned grand was she was to the pending file, did not read the and had no informa- and not to the trial of the case. tion as to the identity or оf availability contends that an assistant dis- State witnesses in the case. trict a case to attorney presents who a that, prosecutor grand jury prosecu- second should be viewed as the testified dur- ing court, trial”, his tenure in the tor who thus “ready making he was never assigned try meaning to the “ready” this case and hаd not been the prepared theory, to do so. Speedy Trial That how- ever, meaningless would render prosecutor The third testified that as of from the of an indicted standpoint defend- 18, 1981, he had never read the case ant, every indictment would connote file and conceded that it would have bеen by “readiness” “difficult, if impossible” to prose- have all of its argues State’s cuted the case under that circumstance. a prosecutors try staff are to case as ready After the court denied the soon returns an indict- grand jury dismiss, motion to and the case was tried to ment. The administrator in of the jury. attorney’s district trial section testified in We sustain ground of error support argument. of that and hold that the evidence re- sufficiently case, however, The trial wаs nei- butted the by assignment ther the function nor prepared that the attor- administrator or the assistant district try the case within the time presented grand who the matter to the ney law. jury. By enacting the Speedy prosecutors duty Trial whose function and the Legislature imposed upon testi- try State was to the case in the courtroom a duty to be ready trial within the were not to do so as they fied applicable time. When a defendant chal claimed his lenges the actual It is those readiness and under the shows it to lacking, grants the statute prosecutors whom the Act him right charges against have the not other staff members or adminis- ready; might dismissed. have been theoretically trators who infor- only to pertains the as- Act only had been on which the State signment. defend- at the timе the seeks to the case 2,1980. was December Appellant arrested trial; not right speedy ant asserts his charged pos- On he was or abandoned рreviously those dismissed prohibited felony. session of In- weapons, the State. pistol gasoline, stead of a and container of “weapons” pistol were a water toy case, In the instant water, the State to requiring container charge. A misdemeanor A new felony charge. abandon indict- aрplicable. 90-day January alleg- ment was obtained is overruled. The motion for misdemeanor, ing only a Class A threat. *4 the felony
Since both and misdemeanor out
charges arose of the same trаnsaction custody prior detained in filing charge, either criminal against action at commenced the time STANFIELD, Appellant, Paul 32.A.02, 2.(a). of his arrest. Art. Seс. commenced, a criminal Once action Section of State to be STATE
ready for trial within: days if the defendant accused Court of Appeals of felony; of a Second District. if accused of a A Class misdemeanor; accused of a B misdemeanor. Discretionary Review Granted State’s motiоn for reasons Oct. case upon the depends category defendant when commences;
action category
charge upon which the defendant
tried and from relief which he seeks under Trial Act. We dо not ascribe intent to significant
A of the Act is purpose
to establish means which charges
may obtain dismissal of the State seeks to if the is not pre time
scribed. of a target “speedy Since
dismissal motion” is the infor which the de under accused,
fendant not construe his we do charges being dependent upon pre abandoned on which the
viously
never trial.
This court concluded that each of the periods prescribed in Section