Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (June 11, 1982)
Docket number: 81-2070
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/powers-carl-white-ashcroft-attorney-36992456
Id. vLex: VLEX-36992456
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

U.S. Supreme Court - Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court - Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971)
James A. Daugherty, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Michael Elbein, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.Before LAY, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and BECKER,* Senior District Judge.HEANEY, Circuit Judge.William F. Powers appeals from the district court's1 denial of his petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Powers contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and to due process of law. We agree with the district court that Powers has not established a constitutional violation and, therefore, we affirm its decision.Powers, an inmate of the Missouri Training Center for Men, seeks to set aside state convictions for burglary second degree and stealing. Powers was arrested for these offenses on September 29, 1976, charged by information on March 2, 1977, and arraigned on May 24, 1977. His trial was initially set for September 2, 1977, but was postponed when he was taken into federal custody on August 25, 1977, on an unrelated offense. Following several further postponements, some at the prosecutor's request and some by consent of both sides, Powers was eventually tried by the state on October 29, 1979. After exhausting his state remedies, Powers filed this federal habeas corpus petition, asserting deprivation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and violation of certain state statutes which specify time periods within which an accused must be brought to trial.The district court first examined the Sixth Amendment claim, concluding that Powers did not establish that his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated. In reaching this conclusion, the court properly considered (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) Powers' assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) what, if any, prejudice Powers suffered from the delay. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Morris v. Wyrick, 516 F.2d 1387, 1390 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access