United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Mallory Gagan Attorney at Law Attorney for Defendant
Presiliano A. Torrez United States Attorney's Office
Attorney for Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
V. ÁZQUEZ 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 and the Speedy Trial Act. Doc.
21. The government timely filed a Response on October 15,
2018 [Doc. 24], and the defense replied on October 29, 2018
[Doc. 26]. The Court, having considered the motion, briefs,
relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that
the motion is well-taken and will be
9, 2016, Jason Butner (“Defendant”) was arrested
by state authorities on a warrant for a parole violation and
booked in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). Doc. 21 at
1. On July 29, 2016, he was released from MDC to the New
Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) on a parole retake. Doc.
21 at 1, Def. Ex. A at 2. On January 12, 2017, the United
States indicted Mr. Butner on one count of Felon in
Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections
922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Doc. 2.
Butner was in the custody of NMCD at the time of the federal
indictment and remained in NMCD custody until January 11,
2018. Doc. 21 at 2, Def. Ex. B. When released, a detainer and
warrants check showed no pending charges. Doc. 21 at 2, Def.
February 17, 2018, Defendant was arrested by state
authorities on new state charges. Defendant was held without
bond at MDC. Doc. 21 at 2, Def. Ex. D.
29, 2018, a writ was issued for his transfer to federal
custody. Doc. 7. Two weeks later, on July 10, 2018, the
federal indictment was unsealed and Mr. Butner was arrested
by federal authorities. Doc. 21 at 2. He was arraigned on the
federal charges on July 12, 2018. Doc. 12.
argues that dismissal is warranted because the government
violated the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment. Doc.
21. The government denies these allegations. Doc. 24. Because
the Court finds a violation of Defendant's Sixth
Amendment right to a speedy trial, it need not address
Defendant's argument that the government violated the
Speedy Trial Act.
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, the Supreme Court
identified four factors that courts must assess in
determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been
violated. 407 U.S. 514 (1972). 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
occurred.” United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d
1262, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009). Instead, the court must consider
all of the factors together “along with other relevant