This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was arrested on May 17, 1992, and charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (fourth or subsequent offense). The initial complaint was dismissed by a magistrate judge for lack of probable cause. The State later filed an amended complaint but faced difficulties locating the Defendant for service. The Defendant was eventually arrested on April 28, 1993, in Nevada on a bench warrant and extradited to New Mexico. The Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, citing delays and violations of his constitutional rights (paras 3-9).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court, May 17, 1992: The initial criminal complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of probable cause (para 3).
- District Court, September 29, 1993: The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, citing violations of the six-month rule, the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, and due process (para 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the case under the six-month rule, as only five months had elapsed between the Defendant's arrest and the trial date. The State also contended that the delay did not meet the threshold for a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation (paras 2, 11, 18).
- Defendant-Appellee: Claimed that the delays violated his rights under the six-month rule, the Sixth Amendment, and due process. He argued that the State failed to exercise due diligence in locating him and that the delays caused him prejudice (paras 9-10, 13, 15).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the charges under the six-month rule (SCRA 5-604(B))?
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the charges based on a violation of the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the charges (para 24).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Six-Month Rule: The Court held that the six-month period began on April 28, 1993, when the Defendant was arrested on the bench warrant. Since only five months had elapsed between the arrest and the trial date, the six-month rule was not violated. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the period should have started earlier, as the amended complaint and prior arrest did not trigger the rule (paras 11-17).
Speedy Trial: The Court applied the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo to assess the speedy trial claim. It found that the five-month delay between the Defendant's April 28, 1993 arrest and the trial date was not presumptively prejudicial. As such, no further inquiry into the other factors was necessary. The Court emphasized that the Defendant was not subject to restrictions on his liberty during the period when the charges were dismissed, and thus his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated (paras 18-23).
The Court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges under both the six-month rule and the Sixth Amendment and reversed the dismissal (paras 24-25).