By Kathleen Takamine
Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Bexar County
I always describe the Texas juvenile justice system as quasi-criminal and quasi-civil. Although the Juvenile Justice Code, Title 3 of the Texas Family Code, oversees the charging and disposition of criminal offenses against juveniles, the procedure is generally civil in nature.[1] To make it more confusing, sometimes we juvenile practitioners must rely on court rulings and Attorney General Opinions to clarify what rules to follow when neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Code of Criminal Procedure are clear enough.
Even then, the situation can get muddied. One such situation is speedy trial.
On October 5, 1978, Texas’s Attorney General issued an opinion on whether the Texas Speedy Trial Act[2] can be applied to juvenile cases.[3] According to the opinion, because the juvenile system is civil in nature, the speedy trial statute does not apply to juvenile proceedings. It is important to note that the opinion is specific that it is addressing the statute, not the constitutional right to speedy trial—and then the statute was declared unconstitutional in Meshell v. State[4] and was repealed. However, I still see Meshell used as an example of when the Code of Criminal Procedure is not always followed in juvenile law.[5] In terms of speedy trial in a juvenile case, there is no statutory basis for it. But what do we do when we receive a speedy trial motion from a defense attorney anyway?
Last year, I had such a situation come up. An attorney filed a motion requesting a non-suit[6] for denial of his client’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Background of the case
On November 8, 2022, a search warrant was executed in A.C.’s residence. There, police found multiple full auto-sears and switches[7] along with a number of firearms. About 12 days later, an arrest warrant for A.C. was obtained for two counts of Unlawful Use of Criminal Instrument or Mechanical Security Device[8] and two counts of Possession of a Prohibited Weapon.[9] Officers tried to serve the arrest warrant but were unsuccessful. The case was filed with the district attorney’s office in December 2022, and the case was filed as an original petition in August 2023. Due to the large number of firearms, there was a perceived danger in serving the petition on the juvenile and his family and so he was never served.[10] The case was never set on the court docket and the juvenile was not taken into custody until July 2024. During that time, he was booked into the Juvenile Detention Center and the case was finally placed on the docket. Perhaps understandably, his attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss and Request a Non-suit for Denial of Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial. By this time, A.C. was 18 years old.
Before delving into this further, I want to note a couple of important points.
First off, juvenile appeals are governed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.[11] Where the juvenile system before appeal is quasi-criminal and -civil, the appeals process is civil in nature. Juvenile appeals will ultimately end up before the Texas Supreme Court instead of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.[12] Secondly, the State does not have a right to a jury trial in the adjudication phase.[13] I’ll touch on these points again later.
Defense counsel’s main argument was that his client’s constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. To answer, I had to cover any arguments that the court of appeals would examine, including the fact that a juvenile does not have a statutory right to a speedy trial. In other words, what would the court of appeals look at?
The rule of thumb I follow is that I look for cases coming out of my jurisdiction first, then I follow up by looking at other jurisdictions. The first case I found (and the one I used extensively in my argument) was In the Matter of H.S.M.,[14] a memorandum opinion from the Fourth Court of Appeals. All appeals out of Bexar County district and county courts will go to this court. It is not a published opinion, but because appeals in juvenile law fall under the Rules of Appellate Procedure,[15] we can use unpublished opinions;[16] even unpublished, all caselaw has precedential value under this rule. I printed a copy of the rule to submit it to the court and defense counsel in my argument. (Always make copies of caselaw, rules, and statutes that you will use in your arguments to present to the court.)
What was significant about the H.S.M. case?
In the Matter of H.S.M.
H.S.M. was 16 years old when he shot and killed Hezakiah Williams in January 2019. The State sought to certify and transfer H.S.M. for murder but certification was denied in October 2019. The case was then filed as a determinate sentence case, and it was set for a jury trial but was reset about three times. The last setting was for March 2020, just when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and the emergency orders began. During this time, Bexar County suspended all county functions including jury trials. Again, the case was reset several more times due to the suspension of jury trials. It was not until April 2021 when there was any activity on the case.
By this time, H.S.M. was 18 going on 19. Keep in mind that the State does not have a right to a jury trial in juvenile law, but because all the courts were operating under such extraordinary circumstances, the State actually did file a motion requesting a trial.[17] The trial court granted the motion, and the case was set for trial on June 14, 2021. Prior to trial, H.S.M. moved to have the case dismissed due to the failure to provide a speedy trial and for lack of jurisdiction on two separate occasions. During this time, he was 18 years old and would be turning 19 before the trial date. Both times, the trial court denied H.S.M.’s motion, and the case went to trial.
The jury found that he had engaged in the delinquent conduct of murder and placed him on probation for 10 years. By this time, H.S.M. was 19 years old, so the case was transferred to adult probation.
On appeal, one of the arguments dealt with the constitutional issue of speedy trial. The Fourth Court of Appeals used the U.S. Supreme Court case Barker v. Wingo[18] to determine whether a violation had occurred. In Barker, there are four factors the courts must examine:
• the length of the delay,
• the government’s reason for the delay,
• the defendant’s assertion of his right, and
• the prejudice to the defendant.[19]
The four factors
The length of the delay is generally what triggers an examination into whether the individual’s right had been violated. According to caselaw, if the delay lasted over a year, it is considered presumptively prejudicial and the analysis starts.[20] In H.S.M.’s case, the delay was 20 months, triggering further analysis of the Barker factors.
The reason for delay was simple. The cessation of all jury activities made it impossible for the case to go to trial. The resets were not attributed to either H.S.M or the State.
The third factor, whether the defendant demanded his right to a speedy trial, was weighed against H.S.M. The court noted that he never asserted his right for a speedy trial for all that time—he just moved for a dismissal. A person asserting his right to a speedy trial must show that he was diligent in asserting that right.[21]
For the fourth factor, prejudice to H.S.M., the court examined three interests that the right to speedy trial protects:[22] preventing oppressive incarceration, minimizing anxiety and concern of the accused, and limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired.[23] The court found that the record did not show H.S.M. was incarcerated during this time and that “he did not argue … that the delay impaired his defense.”[24] The court also did not find any evidence, nor did he present any testimony, that he suffered anxiety and concern.
After outlining the factors, the court balanced them all together and found that it “weighed against finding a violation of H.S.M.’s right to a speedy trial.”[25]
Back to the present case
Upon receiving defense counsel’s motion, I read it through very carefully. This is a very important point. You need to know exactly what type relief the defense is requesting and to make sure you cover all possible arguments that may come up. If defense counsel is not clear in the motion, have the attorney declare on record what relief is being sought. But the motion in my case was clear.
For my part, although the facts that caused the delay in A.C.’s case were vastly different, I used H.S.M. to draw out the factors that the court examined in determining whether the juvenile’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. A.C.’s case would be appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals so these were factors I addressed.
The first thing I covered was when does the right to speedy trial attach? Under caselaw, “the right to a speedy trial attaches once a person becomes an ‘accused’; that is, once he is arrested or charged.”[26] For A.C., although there was a warrant pending since November 2022, the actual filing of the case didn’t occur until October 2023. A.C. was not taken into custody until July 2024. Based on these dates, the delay was well under a year. That the delay was less than a year also covers the second factor. We did not have to present an argument for the delay.
In addition, defense counsel was not asking for a speedy trial. (This is where a thorough reading of the motion is important.) His motion was similar to H.S.M.’s in that he asked for a dismissal (non-suit) due to a violation of his client’s right to speedy trial. He was not asking for a speedy trial, which should count against him. (Keep in mind that if he had asked for a speedy trial instead of the dismissal, the State had better be ready to try the case as soon as the court gives a trial setting, even though in juvenile law there is no statutory right to a jury trial.)
In regard to prejudice to the juvenile, he had not been in custody prior to July 2024, so he was not deprived of his liberty.
Based on balancing all four factors together, I argued that A.C. was not denied his right to a speedy trial and his motion should be denied.
In the end, the court denied the motion, and A.C. pled to his charges and was sentenced to time in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. For the court’s part, the judge mentioned that in some jurisdictions, speedy trial is not applicable to a juvenile case. Even though that is a legitimate argument to make on its own, I could not limit myself to that single argument. I had to consider all possible arguments that a trial court and court of appeals could apply. In most of the cases we will see as prosecutors, defense attorneys will be thorough and throw everything in the case on behalf of their client. Our responses should not be any less.
Conclusion
Even though speedy trial motions are rare in juvenile law, there is always a chance prosecutors will have to face such rare motions. The general rule is that speedy trials do not apply to juvenile cases. However, when you hear the phrase, “That is the general rule or practice” in any case, always question why that is so. Nowadays, it is easy to do
the research using the available online legal research services, as well as talking to more experienced prosecutors about such matters. That way, when we are hit by a rare motion, we will be prepared to take on that challenge. And whether the court grants or denies the motion, we should consider it a win since we are expanding our skills as prosecutors.
[1] Tex. Fam. Code §51.17. Except for specific provisions in the Family Code, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs proceedings under Title 3.
[2] Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 32A.02.
[3] 1978 Op. Att’y Gen. No. H-1252.
[4] Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
[5] See Robert O. Dawson, Texas Juvenile Law, p. 2 (Texas Juvenile Probation Commission 9th ed. 2008).
[6] In juvenile, dismissals of filed cases are called non-suits. I’ll be using them interchangeably.
[7] Full auto-sears and switches are a device that can transform a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm. I know this is Texas and most of you probably know what those are, but I include this detail for those who might not know.
[8] Tex. Pen. Code §16.01, more specifically for this case, §16.01(a)(2): A person commits an offense if: (2) with knowledge of its character and with the intent to use a criminal instrument or mechanical security device or aide or permit another to use the instrument or device in the commission of an offense, the person manufactures, adapts, sells, installs or sets up the instrument or device. This is a state jail felony.
[9] Tex. Pen. Code §46.05, Prohibited Weapons.
[10] Reminder that juveniles are summoned to appear in court. They are served just as in a civil case.
[11] Tex. Fam. Code §56.01.
[12] Ibid.
[13] The right to a jury trial is in Family Code §54.03. Texas courts have ruled that it is a statutory right and not a constitutional right for juveniles. See In the Matter of R.R., 373 S.W.3d 730 (Tex.App.—Houston ([14th Dist.]) 2012, reh’g denied). Under the Family Code, a jury trial is required unless it is waived by the juvenile and his or her attorney.
[14] 2024 WL 2732319; it is not reported in the S.W.3d Reporter.
[15] Tex. Fam. Code §56.01.
[16] Tex. R. App. P. 47.7(b).
[17] Shout out to my fellow prosecutors, Ellen Wheeler-Walter and Joshua Luke Sandoval, for taking the case to trial. And a special shout out to Ellen for taking the initiative and filing the motion.
[18] Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
[19] Id. at 530. See also 2024 WL 2732319.
[20] Id at 530. See also Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 767-768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
[21] Cantu vs. State, 253 S.W.3d 273, 280-281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
[22] See 2024 WL 2732319. H.S.M. cites Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 776.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Cantu vs. State, 253 S.W.3d 273, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); the case also cites U.S. v. Marion, 40 U.S. 307, 321, 92 S.Ct.. 455, 30L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).