United States District Court, D. New Mexico
J Tallon Attorney at Law Attorney for Defendant
Mysliwiec United States Attorney's Office Attorney for
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice for Violations of Sixth
Amendment Speedy Trial Right; the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers; and the Speedy Trial Act. [Doc. 19]. The
government timely filed a Response, [Doc. 20], and Defendant
filed a Reply. [Doc 23]. The Court, having considered the
Motion, briefs, relevant law, and being otherwise fully
informed, finds that the motion is well-taken and will be
October 31, 2013, Isidor Benjamin Archuleta
(“Defendant”) was arrested in Farmington, New
Mexico and charged with Trafficking a Controlled Substance,
Possession of a Firearm by a Felon, Tampering with Evidence,
and various motor vehicle offenses (“New Mexico
charges”). [Doc. 19 at 1]. On November 20, 2013, a
criminal information charging these offenses was filed. [Doc.
19 at 1]. Defendant was in custody from October 31, 2013
until November 26, 2013, when he posted a $30, 000 bond and
was released. [Doc. 19 at 2].
January 16, 2014, Defendant was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona
and charged with Offering a Forged Instrument (“Arizona
charges”). Defendant was incarcerated on these charges
for 24 months.
7, 2014, the United States filed an Indictment [Doc. 1]
charging Defendant with being a Felon in Possession of a
Firearm (“federal charges”).
24, 2014, Defendant was temporarily transferred to the San
Juan County Adult Detention Center in New Mexico, and a
detainer was issued by the Arizona Department of Corrections.
[Doc. 23-1 at 2 and 4]. On July 11, 2014, the State of New
Mexico filed a nolle prosequi and, on July 31, 2014
[Doc. 23-1 at 12], Defendant was returned to the custody of
the Arizona Department of Corrections. [Doc. 23-1 at 3].
was granted parole in Arizona in January 2016 and, through an
interstate compact, parole supervision was assumed by the
State of New Mexico. [Doc. 19 at 3]. On June 14, 2016,
Defendant was arrested on the federal charges, and he was
arraigned on June 17, 2016. [Doc. 9].
argues that dismissal is warranted because the government
violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, the Speedy
Trial Act, and the Sixth Amendment. The government denies
these allegations. Because the Court finds a violation of
Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, it
need not address Defendant's remaining arguments.
Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial
Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy .
. . trial.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The remedy for a
speedy trial violation is dismissal of the case. United
States v. Margheim, 770 F.3d 1312, 1325 (10th Cir.
2014). In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the
Supreme Court identified four factors that courts must assess
in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been
violated. These factors are (1) the length of delay, (2) the
reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of
his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Id.
at 530. “No one factor is necessary or sufficient to
conclude a violation has ...