Williams v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. State

    290 Ga. 24 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Holding in a speedy trial context that when a delay is caused by the accused, the State should not be penalized

    That is correct, as discussed in Division 1, supra, but the error is harmless because, as Williams readily acknowledges, he did not assert his right until the present motion was filed on July 9, 2010, which was approximately 48 months from the time of his indictment. It is appropriate to weigh such a lengthy delay heavily against him. Scandrett v. State, 279 Ga. 632, 635(1)(c), 619 S.E.2d 603 (2005). Insofar as Williams suggests that he could not have asserted his right sooner because discovery was not complete, the argument is unavailing. Williams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 797, 798(c), 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009). 4. Prejudice to the defendant.

  2. Milner v. State

    329 Ga. App. 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Pickett, 288 Ga. at 679(2)(d), 706 S.E.2d 561. See also Moore, 314 Ga.App. at 221(2)(a), 723 S.E.2d 508; Williams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 797, 798(c), 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009) (“we find no connection between the State's failure to respond to her discovery and her failure to assert her rights”), aff'd, 290 Ga. 24, 27(3), 717 S.E.2d 640 (2011). This is particularly true in view of Milner's lengthy delay in asserting his right to a speedy trial, addressed supra.

  3. Richardson v. State

    318 Ga. App. 155 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    In considering the State's failure to timely provide certain discovery, the trial court ultimately may find that the failure should not serve as a mitigating factor under the particular facts of this case, as we recognized in Shirley, 311 Ga.App. at 146(3)(c), 714 S.E.2d 636. See Williams v. State, 290 Ga. 24, 27(3), 717 S.E.2d 640 (2011); Williams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 797, 798(c), 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009). What is critical is that the trial court exercise its discretion and address the issue of the specific discovery problems at issue in this case in evaluating the third Barker–Doggett factor.

  4. State v. Shirley

    311 Ga. App. 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times

    See also State v. Moses, 301 Ga. App. 315, 319-320 (2) (c) ( 692 S.E.2d 1) (2009) (factors warranting mitigation included defendant's appearance and announcement of ready for trial when state was not prepared to try the case). See Williams v. State, 300 Ga. App. 797, 798 (c) ( 686 S.E.2d 407) (2009) (trial court did not err in weighing the reasons for the delay against the defendant notwithstanding her contention that the state had not complied with her discovery requests). See Ivory, supra at 864 (3) ("the trial court . . . refused to weigh Ivory's failure to assert his right to a speedy trial against him because he could not be blamed for not demanding to be tried when discovery was still outstanding").

  5. The State v. Hartsfield

    711 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    But Hartsfield asserted no connection between the state's delay in providing an updated witness list and his delay in asserting his rights. See Williams v. State, 300 Ga. App. 797, 798 (c) ( 686 SE2d 407) (2009) (no connection between the state's failure to respond to defendant's discovery requests and defendant's failure to assert her rights). The court thus erred in considering this in mitigation.

  6. Ogletree v. State

    303 Ga. App. 581 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    However, Ogletree was out on bond during this period; therefore, the trial court was authorized to give less weight to this factor. See Williams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 797, 798(d), 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009).           (b) Reason for delay.

  7. Over v. State

    302 Ga. App. 215 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting argument that defendant's jury trial demands should be construed as speedy trial demands because they cited Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI, given that the "jury trial demands themselves ... included no explicit speedy trial demands, and ... a demand for jury trial does not invoke a constitutional right to a speedy trial"

    The " responsibility for bringing a defendant promptly to trial rests with the government." Williams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 797, 798(b), 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009). A delay due to crowded dockets resulting from " the government's failure to provide for sufficient numbers of judges, prosecutors, or indigent defense counsel," is a delay caused by the government, albeit unintentional, and must be weighed against the State. Ruffin,supra, 284 Ga. at 60(2)(b)(ii), 663 S.E.2d 189; Oni v. State, 285 Ga.App. 342, 343-344(2)(b), 646 S.E.2d 312 (2007).

  8. Taylor v. State

    338 Ga. App. 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing those prior appeals

    Here, the record shows that Taylor received all of the State's discovery by August 2010, but did not demand a speedy trial until July 2012, almost two years later. Under these circumstances, the trial court was authorized to find Taylor's claim that his failure to file a speedy trial demand should be mitigated by the State's delay in providing discovery "unavailing." See Williams v. State , 290 Ga. 24, 27, 717 S.E.2d 640 (2011) (affirming trial court's decision to weigh this factor heavily against the defendant even though defendant contended he could not have asserted right sooner because discovery was incomplete); Williams v. State , 300 Ga.App. 797, 798, 686 S.E.2d 407 (2009) (trial court authorized to conclude no connection between State's failure to comply with discovery requests and defendant's late assertion of right to speedy trial). (d) Prejudice .