State of Alabama v. Brandon Clifford Watts, alias

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/09/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-0728 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Brandon C l i f f o r d Watts Appeal MAIN, Court Judge. The the from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-08-1316) State appeals t h et r i a l two c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Brandon court's p r e t r i a l 1 Clifford dismissal of Watts: breaking and The a p p e l l e e i s referred t o as b o t h "Brandon" and "Braden" t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e c o r d ; however, f o r c o n s i s t e n c y , i n t h i s o p i n i o n we w i l l r e f e r t o h i m a s " B r a n d o n . " 1 CR-08-0728 entering a motor vehicle, a violation Code 1975, and t h i r d - d e g r e e Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 . The to call he record indicates theft, of § 13A-8-11(b), A l a . t h a t when t h e t r i a l the p r e s e n t case f o rt r i a l , "THE here? COURT: A l l r i g h t . "[PROSECUTOR]: Your could be h e r e "THE court transpired: Watts. they t o l d me proceeded Is they -¬ COURT: No, n o , n o . I t o l d "[PROSECUTOR]: Your Hold o f § 13A-8-5, the following Mr. B r a n d o n Honor, we're g o i n g t o t r y t h e case "THE a violation y o u t h e c a s e -¬ a t 2. H o n o r -¬ COURT: A l l r i g h t . At this time -- listen. u p , now -"[PROSECUTOR ]: Your 2 "THE COURT: No. "[PROSECUTOR]: "THE H o n o r -¬ I -¬ COURT: L i s t e n . I cannot do this. " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : We'd a s k f o r t h e C o u r t ' s indulgence. "THE COURT: No. A l t h o u g h a d i f f e r e n t name a p p e a r s f o r t h i s s p e a k e r h e r e and i n two o t h e r comments, i t a p p e a r s that this is a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r . The comments i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y was a p r o s e c u t o r . 2 2 CR-08-0728 "[PROSECUTOR]: He's h a d c h i l d - c a r e "THE COURT: No. "[PROSECUTOR]: [Defense Your COURT: A l l r i g h t . the Court calls Alabama v e r s u s Brandon ready "Is this ask you -¬ minimum, a motion to case of -- a t t h i s the State of Watts. to proceed? the State ready make At this on t h e r e c o r d , "[PROSECUTOR]: Your here I'd the case "Is the State ready to proceed? "Get to Honor, c o u n s e l ] -¬ "THE time, issues. Is the State [Court Reporter.] to proceed? Honor, t h e S t a t e would continue tomorrow morning when this case, our victims like at a c a n be -¬ "THE COURT: W h y ? "[PROSECUTOR]: "THE -- f o r t h e t r i a l . COURT: Why? " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Y o u r H o n o r , a s t h i s c a s e was s e t , [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] h a d a c o n f l i c t on T h u r s d a y . Our "[DEFENSE Wednesday. COUNSEL]: I had a conflict on I came -¬ " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : On t h e d a y y o u w e r e g o i n g t o s e t it You f o r -¬ "THE COURT: t h e d a y t h e c a s e -- l i s t e n , now. d i d n ' t t e l l me o r y o u d i d n ' t make a m o t i o n f o r 3 CR-08-0728 a continuance today. when I set this "[PROSECUTOR]: Y o u r our -- o n e o f y o u r a male. They're Honor, victims both case at that COURT: Now, "[PROSECUTOR]: and one o f them h e r e COURT: -- s o we c a n g e t t h e c a s e t h e m -- I'm n o t g o i n g o u r -¬ -¬ -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: They t o o k "THE time -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: B e c a u s e "THE o'clock -- t h e r e ' s a f e m a l e "THE COURT: W e l l , why a i n ' t "THE for 2 started? -- t h e l a d y -- t h e w i f e -¬ listen. I'm n o t g o i n g t o l e t them r u l e I understand to l e t the Court. that. COURT: A l l r i g h t . "[PROSECUTOR]: And I r e s p e c t t h a t , Your Honor. "THE COURT: What s a y s t h e -- t h e S t a t e ' s n o t ready t o proceed? Motion f o ra continuance denied. "[PROSECUTOR]: Your "THE COURT: M o t i o n Honor, i f you don't f o ra continuance -¬ i s denied. " [ P R O S E C U T O R } : I f y o u d o n ' t -- I u n d e r s t a n d . I f you d o n ' t r e q u i r e them t o be h e r e d u r i n g v o i r d i r e , we c a n go a h e a d r i g h t now. "THE COURT: W e l l , t h e y ' v e q u a l i f i e d to the jury. g o t t o be h e r e "[PROSECUTOR]: Can I p r e s e n t "THE COURT: No. 4 their t o be names -¬ CR-08-0728 "[PROSECUTOR]: "THE -- t o t h e j u r y ? COURT: T h a t ' s not going t o mean anything. " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : We c a n go -- we c a n go a h e a d w i t h the trial, because they need t o b e -¬ "THE COURT: No. "[PROSECUTOR]: t h e y ' l l be h e r e -- n e e d "[PROSECUTOR]: Your h o n o r , jury, they're not a l l I'm s a y i n g -¬ COURT: A n d a l l I'm s a y i n g -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: whole p r o c e s s , our that to t e s t i f y . "THE COURT: When I s e l e c t t h i s going to t e s t i f y . "THE by t h e time victims -- i s t h a t throughout a l l this [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] h a s l i e d t o me, a n d deserve some s o r t "THE COURT: I d o n ' t o f -¬ h a v e -- now, l i s t e n . I d o n ' t know a n y t h i n g . " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : -- u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what's going on. Now here? "THE COURT: I d o n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g t h e case i s s e t f o r t r i a l . Why " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : The -- y o u r "THE COURT: The t i m e "[PROSECUTOR]: yesterday. "THE Your -- t h e y d o . aren't they H o n o r -¬ i s now 2 : 2 0 . Honor, COURT: A l l r i g h t . 5 they took o f f work Anything from t h e -- CR-08-0728 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I move t o d i s m i s s "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . dismissed." (R. the case. I ' l l grant i t then. Case 1-5.) F o l l o w i n g f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n between t h e t r i a l the c o u r t and attorneys, court the prosecutor moved the t r i a l r e c o n s i d e r t h e d i s m i s s a l and t h e t r i a l c o u r t responded: if I d i d , your client's not here." (R. 1 6 . ) indication i n the record of continuance h a v i n g b e e n made b y t h e S t a t e i n t h i s any p r e v i o u s 3 "Well, There motion to i s no for a case. T h e r e a f t e r , the p r o s e c u t o r then f i l e d a w r i t t e n motion t o reconsider, arguing that the t r i a l court improperly prevented the S t a t e from b e i n g a l l o w e d t o p r o c e e d v i c t i m and a w i t n e s s to t r i a l because the ( t h e v i c t i m ' s w i f e ) w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e v e n i r e , a l t h o u g h t h e y w o u l d be p r e s e n t t o t e s t i f y at t r i a l . The S t a t e argued: " T h e r e i s no l a w i n A l a b a m a t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e v i c t i m or a w i t n e s s t o be p r e s e n t d u r i n g v o i r d i r e t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e v e n i r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e i s no law i n Alabama t h a t a l l o w s a judge t o d i s m i s s a case b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m o r a w i t n e s s was n o t p r e s e n t d u r i n g v o i r d i r e t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e v e n i r e . " We n o t e t h a t i n c i v i l c a s e s , a t r i a l c o u r t i s a u t h o r i z e d by R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R . C i v . P . t o d i s m i s s a c a s e f o r f a i l u r e t o prosecute. 3 6 CR-08-0728 (C. 12.) The trial court denied the motion. The State court lacked appealed. The State a r g u e s on appeal t h a t the trial t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t W a t t s f o r want o f prosecution and that, even i f the trial court had such a u t h o r i t y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d i s m i s s i n g the charges a f t e r the p r o s e c u t o r proceed. s t a t e d t h a t he was ready to 4 " I t i s fundamental i n our p r o c e d u r e t h a t the c o u r t must n e c e s s a r i l y be v e s t e d w i t h d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e t r i a l and u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e trial court, the appellate courts will not i n t e r f e r e , b u t w i l l presume t h a t t h e t r i a l court accorded a fair and impartial t r i a l to a l l litigants." C a r s o n v. S t a t e , 49 A l a . App. 413, 416, 272 So. 2d 619, 622 (1973). "'A t r i a l c o u r t i s v e s t e d w i t h d i s c r e t i o n i n the conduct of a t r i a l , and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s w i l l n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e exercise of that discretion unless i t clearly a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s m e n t i o n i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l b r i e f s and the S t a t e argues i n i t s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of the case, as o p p o s e d t o a n o l l e prosequi, p r e v e n t e d a r e - i n d i c t m e n t , c i t i n g S t a t e v. M c N e i l , 716 So. 2d 250 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998), t h a t i s s u e i s not b e f o r e us b e c a u s e i t was n o t r a i s e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t . M o r e o v e r , as t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n M c N e i l , 716 So. 2d a t 252, t h e r e had b e e n no a p p e a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e and d i s m i s s i n g t h e c a s e ; t h u s , t h e r e was no a l l e g a t i o n o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r e r r o r as a r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l . T h e r e f o r e , M c N e i l i s n o t germane. 4 7 CR-08-0728 S h e l t o n v . S t a t e , 384 So. 2d 869, 870 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 384 So. 2 d 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . ' Carden v. S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 342, 346 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). See a l s o R h e u a r k v . S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 135 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . " Baker v. S t a t e , reversed (Ala. 906 So. 2d 2 1 0 , 269 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , on o t h e r grounds, Ex p a r t e B a k e r , 906 So. 2d 277 2004). Moreover, " ' G e n e r a l l y , a p a r t y , whether r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l o r a c t i n g p r o s e , h a s a d u t y t o keep a b r e a s t o f t h e s t a t u s o f h i s c a s e , a n d no d u t y r e s t s on t h e c o u r t o r o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s t o advise him o f the t r i a l date. Bowman v. S l a d e , 501 So. 2d 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a case f o r lack o f p r o s e c u t i o n and t h e subsequent refusal to reinstate i tare d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Bowman v. S l a d e . ' W a t e r s v . S m i t h , 586 So. 2d 22 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " H a r t v. C i t y App. of P r i c e v i l l e , 631 So. 2d 3 0 1 , 302 ( A l a . C r i m . 1993) ( a d d r e s s i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l municipal court to the c i r c u i t It i s well settled o f an a p p e a l from t h e court). that the process of voir dire e x a m i n a t i o n remains w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l court. (1975). C l a r k v . S t a t e , 294 A l a . 493, 495, 318 So. 2d 822, 824 " [ I ] t i s i n the d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e j u d g e w h e t h e r he w i l l q u e s t i o n t h e p a n e l o f j u r o r s as t o m a t t e r s w h i c h t e n d t o 8 CR-08-0728 show i n t e r e s t o r b i a s n o t a m o u n t i n g to disqualification, w h e t h e r o r n o t he i s r e q u e s t e d b y c o u n s e l t o do s o . " Freight Lines, 895, 896 ... Avery I n c . v. S t e w a r t , 258 A l a . 524, 526, 63 So. 2d (1953). "'The p u r p o s e of v o i r dire i s to provide s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e j u r o r s t o e n a b l e t h e t r i a l c o u r t to make a meaningful determination v e n i r e m e m b e r s c o u l d be i m p a r t i a l . ' 2d 115, 124 (Ala. 2000)." ( A l a . Crim. Beckworth C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . App. aff'd, (d), Ala.R.Crim.P. 770 knowing See R u l e s selecting, and This examination follows the q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the v i c t i m . A l a . Code 18.4(c) (generally addressing v o i r d i r e examination See § 12-16-60, ( s t a t u t o r y grounds f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n ) . 100, So. 2d 143 the defendant, the the j u r y p a n e l ; a veniremember i s not s t a t u t o r i l y for the Thus, t o u n c o v e r b i a s , p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s a r e o r any o f t h e w i t n e s s e s . and i t s s c o p e ) . whether 946 So. 2d 490, 514 ( A l a . o f t e n a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e y know t h e v i c t i m , attorneys, to P r e s s l e y v. S t a t e , 770 So. 1999), v. S t a t e , as 1975 (discussing and empaneling jurors). disqualified A l a . Code 1975 See a l s o § 12-16¬ the process of drawing, S e c t i o n 12-16-150, A l a . Code 1975, e n u m e r a t e s g e n e r a l g r o u n d s f o r c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e o f a j u r o r by e i t h e r p a r t y , and, a l t h o u g h b e i n g r e l a t e d t o a 9 CR-08-0728 defendant, those t h e p r o s e c u t o r , o r t h e v i c t i m i s l i s t e d as one grounds, being acquainted with a s s o c i a t e of such a p a r t y i s not. j u r o r may or being a friend of or Thus, a l t h o u g h a p o t e n t i a l be c h a l l e n g e d f o r k n o w i n g t h e v i c t i m , t h i s r e a s o n i s not a s t a t u t o r i l y r e c o g n i z e d ground f o r a c h a l l e n g e f o r cause based on bias. Moreover, there is no statute or rule r e q u i r i n g a v i c t i m t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e v e n i r e . Here, the v i c t i m the and h i s w i f e were n o t presented to venire to p a n e l may have known t h e v i c t i m t h e v i c t i m o r a w i t n e s s was d e a t h , he o r she determine available i f any to member o f or h i s w i f e . be the Similarly, i f u n a v a i l a b l e because of i n j u r y c l e a r l y w o u l d n o t be p r e s e n t . However, or the p r o s e c u t o r o f f e r e d t o p r e s e n t t h e names o f t h e v i c t i m and h i s w i f e to the v e n i r e to determine b i a s . D e s p i t e some d i s c u s s i o n a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l as t o w h e t h e r t h e v i c t i m w a n t e d W a t t s t o be imprisoned, the p r o s e c u t o r c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m and w i t n e s s w o u l d be a v a i l a b l e and w i l l i n g testify (Ala. at t r i a l . Crim. App. Cf. 1990) had Ready v. (holding S t a t e , 574 that the So. 2d 894, victim's to 902 prior v i d e o t a p e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g was a d m i s s i b l e 10 CR-08-0728 as testimony at t r i a l where t h e v i c t i m was u n a v a i l a b l e t o testify). After asserting that available fort r i a l , the v i c t i m and w i t n e s s would be t h e S t a t e a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t was r e a d y t o proceed. "'A d u t y r e s t s upon t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y t o p r o s e c u t e i n h i s c o u n t y o r d i s t r i c t , on b e h a l f o f t h e p e o p l e , a l l p u b l i c o f f e n s e s . Where a s t a t u t e so p r o v i d e s , t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y must i n i t i a t e proceedings f o r the p r o s e c u t i o n of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of p u b l i c offenses, when he h a s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t s u c h o f f e n s e s have b e e n committed.'" P i g g l y W i g g l y No. 208, I n c . v . D u t t o n , (Ala. and 1992). 601 So. 2d 907, 910 " I ti s the o b l i g a t i o n of the attorney crimes. In r e W h i t e , 53 A l a . App. 377, 300 So. 2d 420, c e r t . d e n i e d , 293 Ala. t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y t o expose and p r o s e c u t e general 778, 300 So. 2d 439 (1974). Such i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e j u d i c i a l branch o f government." D i c k e r s o n v. S t a t e , 414 So. 2d 998, 1008 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) , on other 1988). App. g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e primary abrogated Bohannon, 564 So. 2d 854 (Ala. C f . S t a t e v . A n d e r s o n , 8 So. 3d 1033, 1037 ( A l a . C r i m . 2008) (acknowledging the t r i a l court's f r u s t r a t i o n , but h o l d i n g t h a t t h a t c o u r t exceeded i t s a u t h o r i t y by d i s m i s s i n g the charge in a guilty p l e a when t h e S t a t e 11 d i d not present CR-08-0728 witnesses to e s t a b l i s h the f a c t u a l Anderson d i s p u t e d them). basis of the plea after See a l s o S t a t e v. S a l i n a s , 976 S.W. 2d 870, 871 (Tex. App. 1998) ("The T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t confer its upon t h e t r i a l docket by prosecutions. maintaining court causing Rather, the general or in preventing this to maintain dismissal responsibility or d i s c o n t i n u i n g c r i m i n a l prosecutions not i n the t r i a l judges. a case, o r on t h e c o u r t ' s or the constitution, a trial accusation, i t may court is i s thus n o t do so c o u r t has e i t h e r on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s unless otherwise s t a t u t e , o r common l a w . " ) "While prosecutor authorized (footnotes authorized in a the manner to dismiss (2007). (D.C. 287 Ga. App. In D i s t r i c t 2003), Cruz b e f o r e court State (2003)." 691, 692, 652 S.E.2d 597, 598 o f C o l u m b i a v. C r u z , the t r i a l an 'impermissibly v. A l d r i d g e , 25 9 Ga. App. 67 3, 67 4 ( 1 ) , 577 S.E.2d 8 63 v. C a r r , by omitted). i n t e r f e r [ i n g ] with the State's r i g h t to prosecute....' State for and c o u n t y a t t o r n e y s , and own m o t i o n , dismissal of i s vested A c c o r d i n g l y , a Texas t r i a l no a u t h o r i t y t o d i s m i s s consents the state, almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n the d i s t r i c t motion ability dismissed 828 A . 2 d 1 8 1 , 183 the charges against t r i a l b a s e d on a r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e a n d due t o t h e 12 CR-08-0728 prosecution's lack of preparedness. The appellate court stated: "Under S u p e r . C t . C r i m . R. 48(b): "'a c o u r t has i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o d i s m i s s f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n . However, t h e r e a r e l i m i t a t i o n s on t h i s a u t h o r i t y t o d i s m i s s f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n : Such a u t h o r i t y may not be exercised in an "arbitrary, f a n c i f u l , o r c l e a r l y u n r e a s o n a b l e " manner, and t h e c o u r t may d i s m i s s w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n o n l y when i t [has] conclud[ed] that the defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l has been v i o l a t e d . ' " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Mack, 298 A. 2d 509, 1972) (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ; internal 510 (D.C. citations omitted)." (Footnote trial omitted.) court's In d i s m i s s a l was because Cruz d i d not I n H o l t z m a n v. 528 N.Y.S.2d 21 located on the Cruz, dismissed due Goldman, 71 (1988), the day trial the court to be concluded reversed that the especially assert a speedy-trial violation. of adjournmemt o r c o n t i n u a n c e ; and the charges. N.Y.2d 564, complaining and the the t r i a l The 523 N.E.2d witness c o u l d not be people requested an court denied appellate court the motion reversed, stating: "The power o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o deny t h e P e o p l e f u r t h e r adjournment i s not d i s p u t e d ; the e r r o r l i e s 13 297, CR-08-0728 i n t h e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i t took a f t e r i t d i d so. T r i a l c o u r t s a r e v e s t e d w i t h s t a t u t o r y power t o d i s m i s s i n d i c t m e n t s , o f c o u r s e , b u t t h e power i s n o t unlimited." 71 N.Y.S. a t 570, 523 N.E.2d a t 301, a l s o Commonwealth v . G o n z a l e z , 528 N.Y.S.2d a t 25. See 237 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. C t . App. 2007) ( h o l d i n g t h a t d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o d i s m i s s charges of driving under the influence, o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e w i t h o u t reckless driving, a s e a t b e l t , and o p e r a t i n g a m o t o r v e h i c l e w i t h o u t i n s u r a n c e w i t h o u t S t a t e ' s c o n s e n t , where dismissal was arresting officer); Super. a t Gonzalez's C t . 2007) request based on a b s e n c e of Commonwealth v . K i n g , 932 A . 2 d 948 ( P a . (holding court that trial improperly d i s m i s s e d charges p r e t r i a l because t h e State d i d n o t d i s c l o s e the identity 212 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. App. 2006) was n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o d i s m i s s misdemeanor c h a r g e s w i t h o u t t h e State's of a confidential c o n s e n t on t h e b a s i s consent t o F i s h e r ' s waiver informant); State v. F i s h e r , (holding that the t r i a l that the State of a jury court had refused t o trial). "Countervailing the principle of the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c o n t r o l o f a c r i m i n a l case a r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n t e r e s t i n c o n t r o l l i n g i t s own d o c k e t and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l . P e o p l e G u i d o ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 11 I l l . App. 3 d 1067, 1070, 297 N.E.2d 18, 20, d i s c u s s e d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e -p^^^^^ 1 4-4-^-.^ ^ ^ v . , ^-; ^ ^ - , ^ - , - 1 - - ; 14 ^v., ^ v , ^ ! ^ -i-v,-,-!- Vs^-i-v, CR-08-0728 were a d e q u a t e l y s e r v e d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to a speedy t r i a l (see g e n e r a l l y B a r k e r v. Wingo ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed. 2d 101) and by t h e s t a t u t o r y e n a c t m e n t s r e q u i r i n g t r i a l w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d t i m e . ( I l l . Rev. S t a t . 1979, c h . 38, p a r . 103-5.) B u t p r e s c i e n t l y G u i d o a l l u d e d t o t h e p r o b l e m now b e f o r e u s : "'The c o n c l u s i o n we have r e a c h e d does not leave the c o u r t powerless to c o n t r o l its calendar. (T)he c o u r t has contempt powers t o r e q u i r e the S t a t e t o appear. In the u n l i k e l y event that a prosecuting officer should refuse to p r o c e e d t o t r i a l a f t e r b e i n g o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t t o do s o , t h e t r i a l j u d g e may o r d e r t h a t t h e c a s e p r o c e e d t o t r i a l . ' 11 I l l . App. 3d 1067, 297 N.E.2d 18, 20. "The same c o n c l u s i o n was a l s o r e a c h e d i n P e o p l e v. Thomas ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 24 I l l . App. 3d 907, 908, 322 N.E.2d 97. The Thomas c o u r t s a i d : 'Where t h e m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e has b e e n p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e c a s e s h o u l d be c a l l e d f o r t r i a l and i f no e v i d e n c e o r i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d by t h e P e o p l e t h e n a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l may be e n t e r e d by t h e court.'" P e o p l e v. Mooar, 92 I l l . App. 48 I l l . Dec. 186, Similarly, have imposed 189 i n the less s p e e d y - t r i a l ground of 855, 416 N.E.2d 81, 84, (1981). present stringent charges a g a i n s t Watts. 3d 852, case, measures the trial than court could dismissing W a t t s made no s h o w i n g o f p r e j u d i c e , the on o r o t h e r w i s e , as a r e s u l t o f t h e a b s e n c e t h e v i c t i m and w i t n e s s f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e v e n i r e ; 15 the CR-08-0728 victim and t h e w i t n e s s would trial; and t h e r e Under court was the p a r t i c u l a r abused be available no i n d i c a t i o n o f undue c o n t i n u a n c e s . circumstances of this i t s discretion B e c a u s e we f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l to t e s t i f y f o r case, the t r i a l i n dismissing the charges. judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n by d i s m i s s i n g t h e t h i r d - d e g r e e t h e f t - o f - p r o p e r t y charge and t h e b r e a k i n g a n d e n t e r i n g t h e v e h i c l e c h a r g e b a s e d on t h e a b s e n c e of t h e v i c t i m and h i s w i f e f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e v e n i r e , i t s j u d g m e n t i s due t o be r e v e r s e d a n d t h i s c a u s e remanded f o r r e ¬ e n t r y of these charges a g a i n s t Watts. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Windom a n d K e l l u m , J J . , c o n c u r . the result. Wise, Welch, P.J., recuses h e r s e l f . 16 J . , concurs i n

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.