AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sexual penetration in the third degree and released on bond. After various procedural developments, including a mistrial and delays attributed to both the State and Defendant's counsel, the Defendant was tried a second time, resulting in a mixed verdict. The Defendant then filed motions challenging the effectiveness of his counsel and alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment (paras 2-18).

Procedural History

• February 9, 2009: Defendant charged by criminal complaint (para 2).
• May 28, 2009: Defendant identically charged by indictment (para 2).
• April 7, 2010: First trial resulted in a hung jury (para 6).
• December 5, 2012: Second trial led to mixed verdict (para 16).
• June 27, 2013: District court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (para 17).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly in failing to assert his right to a speedy trial (paras 19, 44-46).
• State: Conceded that its negligence caused a significant portion of the delay and that this factor should weigh heavily in Defendant's favor (para 27).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the preservation of his right to a speedy trial.

Disposition

• The court reversed the denial of Defendant's post-trial motion for reconsideration and remanded the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the effectiveness of Defendant's counsel and the speedy trial claim (para 53).

Reasons

• The appellate court found that the Defendant established a prima facie factual basis for a hearing on whether his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to assert his right to a speedy trial. The court analyzed the four factors under Barker v. Wingo to determine the violation of the right to a speedy trial, considering the extraordinary length of delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant. The court agreed that the delay was extreme and weighed heavily in Defendant's favor, and accepted the State's concession that the reasons for delay weighed heavily in Defendant's favor. However, the court found it necessary to remand for further proceedings to fully address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and its impact on the speedy trial analysis (paras 19-53).