Opinion
7:23-CR-045 (WLS)
01-17-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUDITH ALANE CHAVIS, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
At the Pretrial Conference held on January 10, 2024, the Defendant requested a six-month continuance to permit the Defendant to arrange financing to pay restitution in full prior to entering into a plea agreement with the hope that the Government would then recommend a sentence of home confinement. The Court granted Defendant's request contingent on Defendant filing a motion requesting the continuance and Defendant's agreement that the period of delay in holding the trial is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Court entered an Order (Doc. 33) memorializing the Pretrial Conference.
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Continue (Doc. 34) (“Motion”). Therein, Defense Counsel requests a six-month continuance of the trial for the reasons stated at the Pretrial Conference. Defense Counsel states that “[t]he Defendant waives her right to a speedy trial” (Doc. 34 ¶ 3).He further represents that the Government does not oppose the instant Motion.
The Court notes “a defendant may not prospectively waive the application of the [Speedy Trial] Act.” Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 503 (2006) Thus, Defendant's waiver of her right to a speedy trial is applicable only to the continuance granted herein.
Based on the Defendant's stated reasons, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance to allow Defendant to pay restitution in full outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)-(B). Therefore, the Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.
The Court hereby ORDERS that the trial in the above-referenced matter be CONTINUED to the Valdosta Division August 2024 trial term and its conclusion, or as may otherwise be ordered by the Court. Furthermore, it is ORDERED that the time lost under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, is EXCLUDED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) because the Court has continued the trial in this case and finds that the failure to grant a continuance (a) would likely result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
SO ORDERED.