Sean Williams appeals the denial of his pre-trial motion for his discharge and acquittal of charges stemming from a double murder, based upon an alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. The record reflects the following. On August 13, 2004, Williams was arrested on drug and firearm charges, not part of the indictment in the instant case. He was incarcerated on those charges in Clayton County when the bodies of two men were recovered from the trunk of a vehicle in Fulton County, and on November 5, 2005, Williams was first held in custody for these murders. Williams was denied bond on the murder charges on December 6, 2005, and he remained incarcerated. On August 22, 2006, a Fulton County grand jury returned a fourteen-count indictment against Williams, stemming from the double murder.1 Between November 2005 and July 2010, Williams was represented by at least three different public defenders. On July 9, 2010, Williams filed the present motion for discharge and acquittal, alleging violations of his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the State Constitution. On August 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Fulton County issued a “revised and corrected order” denying Williams’s motion, thereby refusing to dismiss the case.
The analysis by this Court is governed by well-settled law. Fallen v. State , 289 Ga. 247 710 SE2d 559 2011. In examining an alleged denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, courts must engage in a balancing test with the following factors being considered: 1 the length of the delay; 2 the reasons for the delay; 3 the defendant’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial; and 4 prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 92 SC 2128, 33 LE2d 101 1972. The existence of no one factor is either necessary or sufficient to sustain a speedy trial claim, and a trial court’s findings of fact and its weighing of disputed facts will be afforded deference on appeal. We review the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. Citations and punctuation omitted. Fallen v. State , supra at 247-248.
