Whatley v. State

The trial court properly denied the defendant's plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds, since there was no evidence that the prosecutor engaged in any misconduct with the intent to provoke a mistrial and did not deliberately withhold any information or reports from the defense.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Horance W. Whatley appeals from orders of the Walton County Superior Court denying his plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds and his plea in bar based on an alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Whatley contends that the trial court erred in denying his double jeopardy claim because the evidence showed that the prosecutor intentionally provoked a mistrial for the purpose of having the opportunity to retry Whatley under more favorable circumstances. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his speedy trial claim because when ruling on this claim, the trial court considered only the amount of time that had elapsed since Whatley’s first trial ended in a mistrial, rather than the entire amount of time that had elapsed since Whatley’s arrest on the charges at issue. We find no error and affirm.

The record shows that Whatley was arrested on May 20, 2008, on charges of sexual battery, enticing a child for indecent purposes, child molestation, cruelty to a child, and sexual assault. The victim of Whatley’s alleged acts was his then seven-year-old daughter, B. W. Whatley was released on bond within two days of his arrest, and has remained free on bond since that time. On December 18, 2009, Whatley was indicted on one count of child molestation, one count of sexual battery, and one count on enticing a child for indecent purposes. He thereafter appeared at calendar calls and announced ready for trial on November 15, 2010, February 7, 2011, and August 8, 2011.

Whatley v. State

The trial court properly denied the defendant's plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds, since there was no evidence that the prosecutor engaged in any misconduct with the intent to provoke a mistrial and did not deliberately withhold any information or reports from the defense.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report