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 indicted for possession of cocaine and entered a conditional plea of guilt, reserving the right to appeal the district court's decision on his claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated due to the length of pretrial delay (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated due to the length of pretrial delay (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the Defendant's speedy trial claim (para 6).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge concurring, provided the opinion. The court conducted a speedy trial analysis, starting with determining if the pretrial delay was presumptively prejudicial. The court found the delay of almost twenty-two months sufficient to trigger a presumption of prejudice for a simple case. After considering the length of delay, reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant, the court concluded that the delay, while weighing slightly in the Defendant's favor, did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The reasons for the delay were attributed equally to the Defendant and the State, and the Defendant's claims of prejudice, including pretrial stress and potential faded memories of witnesses, were deemed insufficient to establish actual prejudice under the speedy trial analysis (paras 2-5).