¶18 Greer argues his right to a speedy trial was violated because he was not brought to trial within the time limits set forth in Rule 8.2(a)(3)(C), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and the Sixth Amendment. We review a trial court's Rule 8 rulings and factual determinations for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 8 (2013); State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 4 (App. 2011), and its rulings in regard to the right to a speedy trial originating from the Sixth Amendment de novo, Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 8. We will first consider the issue under Rule 8, as the right to a speedy trial under the rule "is more strict than that provided by the United States Constitution."
"We review a trial court's Rule 8 rulings for abuse of discretion." State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 4 (App. 2011). "A trial court's ruling regarding Rule 8 will be upheld unless a defendant shows both an abuse of discretion and prejudice."
¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts." State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 2, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). In July 2014, Simpson met then twelve-year-old T.N. and ten-year-old J.B. after introducing himself to their mother, M.C., in a grocery store parking lot in Nogales.
We review a trial court's Rule 8 ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543 ¶ 4, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). But we review issues not raised in the trial court only for fundamental error.
¶7 We will not reverse a conviction for a technical violation of Rule 8 where the "defendant has not established that the . . . error . . . prejudiced his defense in any way or deprived him of a fair trial." State v. Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142, ¶ 31, 971 P.2d 189, 196 (App. 1998); see also State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1107, 1109 (App. 2011). To show prejudice, a defendant must establish that "his defense has been harmed by the delay," the delay caused prolonged confinement, the delay's length was unreasonable, Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142, ¶ 22, 971 P.2d at 194, or that the delay had some "impact . . . on his prospects for parole and meaningful rehabilitation."
We review a trial court's denial of a Rule 8 motion for abuse of discretion. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543, ¶ 4, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). ¶18 We find no error in the trial court's denial of Arnold's Rule 8 motion.
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict and view all reasonable inferences against McDonald. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543, ¶ 2, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). ¶2 In October 2011, McDonald was employed by Peddler's Son Produce (Peddler's) as a produce puller.
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolve reasonable inferences against Barreras. See State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 2 (App. 2011). In March of 2014, M.W. and R.M. were cleaning a rental property owned by M.W. M.W. discovered a toy box under a pile of trash on the back patio.