Wesley v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00176-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-11-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Shoplifting - Right to speedy trial Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-05-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: CONVICTED OF SHOPLIFTING AND SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Eleanor Johnson Peterson Case Number: 00-1-337 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kevin Wesley |
THOMAS W. POWELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Shoplifting - Right to speedy trial |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kevin Wesley was convicted of shoplifting and was sentenced to three years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wesley argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Wesley was tried 540 days after his arraignment. Three hundred and twenty-five days are attributable to Wesley’s continuances, changing of attorneys, and refusals to appear in court. This leaves the State responsible for only 215 days. Therefore, Wesley’s statutory right to a speedy trial has not been violated. With regard to his constitutional right, the court should consider the length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of right, and resulting prejudice. There were 762 days from the date of Wesley’s arrest until the date of his trial which is presumptively prejudicial. The majority of the delay was attributable to Wesley’s refusal to appear in court on two separate occasions, Wesley’s decision to change counsel, and defense counsels’ four requested continuances. It is not clear whether Wesley ever demanded a trial. Because the trial unfolded the same as if it had been held much earlier, no real impairment can be claimed. Given these factors, Wesley’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has not been violated. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
