Jernigan v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Green v. State

    672 S.E.2d 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err in heavily weighing against the defendant his near three-year delay in asserting speedy trial right against him

    (Citation omitted.) Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999).Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 62 (2) (b) (iii) ( 663 SE2d 189) (2008).

  2. Mesaros v. State

    641 S.E.2d 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    And, in reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss, we will affirm the ruling absent an abuse of discretion. See Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999). 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972).

  3. Ingram v. State

    634 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 16 times

    Thus, we consider the remaining factors to determine if Ingram's constitutional right to speedy trial was denied. See Boseman, supra at 732 (1) (a) (27-month delay is presumptively prejudicial); Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 66 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999) (17-month delay raises presumption of prejudice); see also Perry v. Mitchell, 253 Ga. 593, 594 ( 322 SE2d 273) (1984) (delay of two years is deplorable). See Barker, supra at 530.

  4. Frazier v. State

    627 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that evidence of prejudice was not specific because the defendant did not explain how the missing witness's undisclosed testimony would have helped his defense

    [Cit.]" Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999). The most important component of the prejudice factor is whether the delay has impaired Frazier's defense. Mullinax v. State, 273 Ga. 756, 759 (2) ( 545 SE2d 891) (2001); see Boseman, supra, 263 Ga. at 734 (2). Since Frazier was released on bond on the date of his arrest and did not present evidence of specific anxiety or concern, this is the only component of the prejudice factor claimed by Frazier.

  5. Brown v. State

    277 Ga. App. 169 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    [Cit.]" Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999). A court determines prejudicial delay by considering three interests that the right to a speedy trial was designed to protect: preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, minimizing undue anxiety and concern to the defendant, and reducing the possibility of impairing the defense.

  6. Allen v. State

    601 S.E.2d 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    The fact that Allen "never filed a demand for a speedy trial suggests that [he] was not suffering anxiety or stress from the delay," (citation omitted.) Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 SE2d 370) (1999), at least not such anxiety that he wanted to get the trial over with. In fact, as noted in our discussion of the reason for the delay, Allen filed the plea in bar that delayed his trial for almost a year.

  7. Mayfield v. State

    264 Ga. App. 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that pretrial delay was largely due to defendant, where he failed to contact the trial court in any way, even though he had an outstanding arrest warrant against him for failing to appear for trial

    " Nelloms v. State.Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 S.E.2d 370) (1999).Haisman v. State, 242 Ga. 896, 898(2) ( 252 S.E.2d 397) (1979).

  8. Carraway v. State

    587 S.E.2d 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    Compare State v. Allgood, 252 Ga. App. 638, 641 ( 556 S.E.2d 857) (2001) (speedy trial rights violated based on length of delay, the lack of reason for delay and the death of a material witness); State v. Bazemore, 249 Ga. App. 584, 586-87(1) ( 549 S.E.2d 426) (2001) (speedy trial rights violated based on length of unexplained delays and defense's inability to locate material witness). See Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 S.E.2d 370) (1999). After balancing all of the Barker factors, we find the trial court did not err when it denied Carraway's motion for discharge and acquittal.

  9. Weldon v. State

    586 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    [Cit.]" Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65, 67 ( 517 S.E.2d 370) (1999). Here, Weldon presented no evidence that any of his witnesses who testified at the first trial were unavailable, only that memories might deteriorate.

  10. Oliver v. State

    262 Ga. App. 637 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    Jackson v. State, 272 Ga. 782, 783 ( 534 S.E.2d 796) (2000). On appeal, the denial of a defendant's constitutional speedy trial cleim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jernigan v. State, 239 Ga. App. 65 ( 517 S.E.2d 370) (1999). (a) The length of the delay.