Williams v. State

Under the circumstances of defendant's case, the 26-month delay between the filing of the indictment against him and the filing of his motion for discharge did not constitute a denial of his right to a speedy trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Frank Lee Williams appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to provide him a speedy trial based on the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. For the following reasons, we reject Williams’ argument and affirm. Preliminarily, we note that this is the second appearance of this case in this court. On August 23, 2001, this court dismissed Williams appeal, based on the rationale of Callaway v. State , 251 Ga. App. 11 553 SE2d 314 2001. Williams appealed the dismissal and, after granting certiorari, the Supreme Court consolidated this case with two other similar dismissals from this court. In Callaway v. State , 275 Ga. 332 567 SE2d 13 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the three dismissals and determined that pretrial orders denying constitutional speedy trial claims are directly appealable. Thus, this case is now before us on remand from the Supreme Court.1

The record before us shows that the acts for which Williams was charged —trafficking in cocaine and violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act —occurred on or about December 3, 1997. On May 29, 1998, the indictment was filed, charging Williams with trafficking in cocaine and violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by selling cocaine. Williams was apparently arrested after the indictment was filed. On July 7, 2000, Williams moved for a dismissal of the indictment based on a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. On July 11, 2000, the superior court denied Williams’ motion to dismiss the indictment and Williams appeals this denial.

Williams v. State

Under the circumstances of defendant's case, the 26-month delay between the filing of the indictment against him and the filing of his motion for discharge did not constitute a denial of his right to a speedy trial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report