More than six years after he was arrested, Xavios Brown still had not been brought to trial, so he moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.1 The court below granted his motion, and the State now appeals. The principles that guide a court in its consideration of whether a delay in bringing an accused to trial works a deprivation of the right to a speedy trial are set out in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U. S. 514 92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101 1972, and Doggett v. United States , 505 U. S. 647 112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520 1992, and the State contends that, when the court below considered the delay in bringing Brown to trial, it misapplied these principles and made findings of fact that the record does not sustain. We agree that the court mistakenly found a fact that does not appear from the record, but in this case, that one mistake is no reason for us to conclude that the court below abused its discretion when it found that Brown was deprived of his right to a speedy trial, nor is it a reason for us to remand the case for further proceedings. Consequently, we affirm the judgment below. Brown was arrested in June 2002 for several crimes, all relating to the alleged molestation of a young boy,2 and he posted a bond and was released from custody soon thereafter.3 Nothing much happened for several years, until a Fulton County grand jury indicted Brown in July 2006 on charges of aggravated child molestation4 and false imprisonment.5 About five months later, a lawyer entered an appearance for Brown, and Brown demanded discovery of the State. The State apparently did not respond to the discovery demand, and Brown filed a motion to compel discovery in April 2007. The record shows that, within a few days of Brown filing his motion to compel, the State tried to mail some discovery materials to his lawyer, but they were sent to the wrong address. Brown finally was arraigned in November 2008,6 and at that time, the State finally provided discovery to Brown.7
In December 2008, Brown moved to dismiss his indictment, contending that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court below heard argument on the motion to dismiss in March 2009, but during the argument, Brown asked that the motion be set over until a later date, so that he could ascertain whether he could secure evidence of an alibi defense. Brown explained that he still was attempting to obtain his work records from the time of the alleged molestation, which, he said, would show that he was working when the molestation allegedly occurred. Brown said that he did not know whether his employer still had records from so long ago and that the availability of the records would bear upon the extent to which he had been prejudiced by the failure of the State to bring him to trial sooner.8 The court agreed to continue the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
