Ruffin v. State

Under the circumstances, the more than 2-year delay between the defendant's indictment and the denial of his motion to dismiss did not violate the defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Roderick Ruffin was indicted in April 2005 for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Allen Burdette two years earlier. After his trial date was continued a third time because of the State’s insistence that he and a co-defendant be tried together and the government’s difficulties in providing him with conflict-free appointed counsel, Ruffin filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. The trial court denied the motion, and Ruffin appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. Allen Burdette was shot to death on September 27, 2003. On April 5, 2005, a PlaceNameplaceFultonPlaceTypeCounty grand jury indicted Ruffin and Spencer Thomas for malice murder, felony murder, attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault. Ruffin was also charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A third alleged participant in the crimes, Marktavious Brown, died prior to the grand jury’s indictment of Ruffin and Thomas.

A warrant issued for Ruffin’s arrest, and he spent the next 2-1/2 months in jail before making bond. Ruffin’s freedom was short-lived, however, as he was rearrested less than three months later on September 9, 2005, on a charge of illegal possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine commonly known as “ecstasy”. In the meantime, Ruffin missed a court date and forfeited his bond. On November 22, 2005, the trial court denied Ruffin’s motion for reinstatement of his bond. As a result, Ruffin spent approximately six months of calendar year 2005 behind bars.

Ruffin v. State

Under the circumstances, the more than 2-year delay between the defendant's indictment and the denial of his motion to dismiss did not violate the defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report