Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Craft v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Rowsey v. State

    188 So. 3d 486 (Miss. 2015)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Overruling prior cases that required the defendant to obtain a ruling on their speedy trial motion in order to preserve their rights and holding that such cases "contravene" the United States Supreme Court's holding in Barker and were in conflict with the court's own precedent

    On the question of whether the right to a speedy trial can be so waived, we already have spoken and have spoken inconsistently. In Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467 (Miss.2002), the defendant, Albert Junior Craft, "filed various motions and demands" for a speedy trial, but he failed to get a ruling until sentencing, when the trial court dismissed the motion as moot. Id. at 470 (¶ 5). Craft raised the issue on appeal in his pro se brief.

  2. Wilson v. State

    NO. 2017-KA-01197-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018)

    The failure to bring a motion to the attention of the trial court and request a hearing waives the issue for appeal. Craft v. State, 832 So. 2d 467, 471 (¶10) (Miss. 2002); Reed v. State, 31 So. 3d 48, 57 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

  3. Bufford v. State

    191 So. 3d 755 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    It was Bufford's responsibility to obtain a ruling from the trial court on his motion. See Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss.2002). Because Bufford did not take any additional steps to preserve this issue for trial, he effectively waived this issue.

  4. Harris v. State

    174 So. 3d 314 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Considering Harris' appeal of the denial of his post-conviction motion by the trial court and his argument that his right to a speedy trial was violated

    This neglect is important to our analysis, since the defendant has a duty to seek a ruling on a motion demanding a speedy trial. Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss.2002); see also Reed v. State, 31 So.3d 48, 57 (¶ 36) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (Motions are not self-executing; the defendant is responsible to seek a ruling.). We do recognize that Harris did file a pro se “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial.” And he petitioned the clerk, then later sought a hearing on that motion.

  5. Ellis v. State

    141 So. 3d 415 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    A defendant has a duty to seek a ruling on a motion demanding a speedy trial. Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss.2002); see also Reed v. State, 31 So.3d 48, 57 (¶ 36) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (Motions are not self-executing; it is the defendant's responsibility to seek a ruling.). Therefore, we find Ellis is procedurally barred on direct appeal from raising the issue of whether his right to a speedy trial was violated.

  6. Ellis v. State

    NO. 2011-KA-01070-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2013)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining that statutory right to speedy trial requires that accused be brought to trial within 270 days of arraignment, and that constitutional right to speedy trial is potentially implicated only in the case of a delay of eight months or longer

    A defendant has a duty to seek a ruling on a motion demanding a speedy trial. Craft v. State, 832 So. 2d 467, 471 (¶10) (Miss. 2002); see also Reed v. State, 31 So. 3d 48, 57 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (Motions are not self-executing; it is the defendant's responsibility to seek a ruling.).

  7. Reed v. State

    2008 KA 573 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Finding criminal defendant may assert a demand for a speedy trial in the trial court and then he is required to obtain a pretrial ruling on that motion

    A party making a motion must follow up that action by bringing it to the attention of the judge and requesting a hearing upon it. The movant bears the responsibility to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by him. . . .Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "Thus, though a defendant has made a written speedy-trial motion, the defendant's failure to bring the motion to the attention of the trial court and request a hearing results in a waiver of the issue for appeal."

  8. Muise v. State

    2007 KA 553 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    The supreme court has held that a defendant who has made a motion demanding a speedy trial has a duty to seek a ruling on the motion. Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2002). The court stated: "a party is obligated to seek a ruling on an objection or motion.

  9. Grant v. State

    913 So. 2d 316 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)

    1996). Likewise, a change in defense attorneys is beyond the control of the State, and is considered good cause for delay. Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2002). Waiting for crime lab results has also been considered a good cause reason for delay, State v. Magnusen, 646 So.2d 1275, 1281 (Miss.

  10. Anderson v. State

    2002 KA 1586 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times
    Observing that "a jury is allowed to consider all logical inferences flowing from the evidence" and determining that the jurors could infer that "F3" on the defendant's conviction report meant "felony" in determining whether the State had met its burden in proving the "convicted felon" element of a felon-in-possession charge

    The movant bears the responsibility to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by him and failure to do so constitutes a waiver of same. Craft v. State, 832 So.2d 467, 471 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2002). ¶ 33.