This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of trafficking, tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The case arose from the Defendant's alleged criminal conduct, but specific details of the events leading to the charges are not provided in the decision.
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County, presided by Judge Teddy L. Hartley: The Defendant was convicted of trafficking, tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Initially challenged the sufficiency of the evidence but later withdrew this argument. Sought to amend the docketing statement to include two new issues: a violation of the right to a speedy trial and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise the speedy trial claim.
- Appellee (State): Opposed the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement, arguing that the new issues were not viable and that the record did not support the claims.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
- Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to raise the speedy trial claim.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the convictions.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Kennedy and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
-
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Defendant abandoned the sufficiency of evidence argument by failing to respond to the Court's proposed summary affirmance.
-
Speedy Trial Claim: The Court found the speedy trial claim not viable because it was not raised in the trial court, and the record lacked sufficient evidence to evaluate the four factors from Barker v. Wingo. The Defendant's actions, including absconding, requesting continuances, and stipulating to the State's extension request, undermined the claim. Additionally, there was no indication that the Defendant made a timely assertion of his right to a speedy trial.
-
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court held that the ineffective assistance claim was not viable because trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a motion unsupported by the record. The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or that counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard. The Court noted that this issue could be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding if further evidence became available.
The Court concluded that the Defendant's new issues lacked merit and affirmed the convictions.