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 charged with driving while intoxicated (first offense) and was found guilty in metropolitan court. The Defendant argued that the case was not brought to trial within the six-month period required by the metropolitan court rule (SCRA 1986, 7-506(B)) (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court, February 1, 1991: The Defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated (first offense) (para 2).
- District Court, May 7, 1991: The Defendant appealed the conviction and moved to dismiss the case, arguing a violation of the six-month rule. The motion was denied (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court was required to independently determine whether the six-month rule was violated, even if the issue was not raised in metropolitan court. The Defendant relied on the de novo nature of district court proceedings and cited State v. Hicks to support this position (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant could not raise the six-month rule issue in district court because it was not raised or preserved in metropolitan court. The Plaintiff argued that issues not raised in lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Was the district court required to independently determine whether the metropolitan court six-month rule was violated, despite the Defendant not raising the issue in metropolitan court?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss (para 8).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Hartz and Black JJ. concurring):
The Court held that while district court proceedings are de novo, the Defendant's rights under the six-month rule are waived if not raised prior to trial in metropolitan court. The six-month rule is intended to encourage the prompt disposition of criminal cases, not to facilitate dismissals. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that the issue was preserved in metropolitan court, and therefore, the district court was not required to make an independent determination of whether the rule was violated. The Court emphasized that the district court's role in de novo proceedings does not include reconstructing the record of the lower court unless the issue was properly preserved (paras 4-7).