State v. Fisher

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Davis

    607 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    State ex rel. McKee v. Riley , 240 S.W.3d 720, 729 (Mo. banc 2007). The issue of whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have been violated is a question of law, and therefore, our review is de novo.State v. Fisher , 509 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). We defer to the trial court's findings of fact.

  2. State v. Gwin

    684 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    [2–4] "The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Missouri Constitution." State v. Vickers, 560 S.W.3d 3, 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)). "The federal and Missouri constitutions provide equivalent protection for a defendant’s right to a speedy trial."

  3. State v. Ausler

    697 S.W.3d 24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    Similarly, in State v. Fisher, the court found that this factor weighed in favor of the defendant when the defendant filed the motion 180 days after his arraignment, objected to the state’s requested continuance, and moved to dismiss the charges based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial. State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The court found that "[b]ased on the length of [the appellant’s detainment (six years), his request for a speedy trial within the first year and a half constitutes a request early in the proceedings and reflects his desire for a speedy trial."

  4. State v. Ausler

    No. ED110825 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2024)

    Similarly, in State v. Fisher, the court found that this factor weighed in favor of the defendant when the defendant filed the motion 180 days after his arraignment, objected to the state's requested continuance, and moved to dismiss the charges based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial. State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).

  5. State v. Oliver

    655 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 15 times
    Finding "that delays attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic should generally not be weighed against either party"

    Similarly, in State v. Fisher , the court found that this factor weighed in favor of the defendant when the defendant filed the motion 180 days after his arraignment, objected to the state's requested continuance, and moved to dismiss the charges based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial. 509 S.W.3d 747, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).

  6. State v. Hines

    648 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by an eight month delay between his arrest and trial when the trial was postponed due to COVID-19 restrictions and the defendant "did not object nor did he notify the trial court that his speedy trial request was a constitutional right that he wanted to remain protected, thereby acquiescing to the delay"

    . This latter inquiry " ‘is significant to the speedy trial analysis because, as we discuss below, the presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time.’ " State v. Fisher , 509 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Doggett v. United States , 505 U.S. 647, 651-52, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992) ). Hines was arrested on July 22, 2020, and his trial began on April 6, 2021—a delay of 8 months and 15 days.

  7. State v. Vickers

    560 S.W.3d 3 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    In Vickers, however, the issue before the court was whether disallowing an alibi witness as a discovery sanction was an abuse of discretion.

    "The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Missouri Constitution." State v. Fisher , 509 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). "The protections of the Sixth Amendment attach when there is a formal indictment or information or when actual restraints are imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge.

  8. State v. Wright

    551 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 16 times

    The right to a speedy trial requires the State to ensure that a defendant receives the early and proper disposition of any charged crimes. State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). "Orderly expedition of a case, not mere speed, is the essential requirement behind a speedy trial."

  9. State v. Jones

    530 S.W.3d 525 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    State v. Green, 389 S.W.3d 684, 686 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (internal citations omitted); see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). Here, the State tacitly concedes the first and second factors, supra, favor Defendant, in that: (1) the delay in bringing Defendant to trial exceeded eight months, Dillard v. State, 931 S.W.2d 157, 162 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ; and (2) "the majority of the delay was attributable either to the state or the trial court[,]" see State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 753-54 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). On the contrary, the third and fourth factors, supra, weigh against Defendant, in that: (3) Defendant delayed filing his request for a speedy trial until nine months after his arrest, State v. Newman, 256 S.W.3d 210, 216 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ("Waiting several months to assert the right to a speedy trial has been found to weigh against a defendant."); and (4) after trial, Defendant was sentenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment, thereby eradicating any claim Defendant may have as to serving additional jail time because of the delay in bringing him to trial, see State v. Greenlee, 327 S.W.3d 602, 613 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).