CAUSE NO._______
THE STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
	§
V.	§	BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
	§
______________	§	___ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR VIOLATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
	COMES NOW ____________, the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the information for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial, and in support would show as follows:
I.
	The Defendant allegedly committed assault on December 12, 2000. An indictment was filed against the Defendant on August 22, 2001. The Defendant was unaware that the indictment was filed against him. The State, since December 12, 2000, was aware of the Texas Driver’s license number, date of birth, and home address of the Defendant. Not until July 2003, however, was the Defendant arrested in this cause. Counsel has now been appointed and trial is set for January 16, 2004.
II.
	Over twenty-three months have elapsed between the filing of the indictment in this cause and the Defendant’s July 2003 arrest. During this extended period, the Defendant lived openly at his home and otherwise lived a normal life in San Antonio, Texas, oblivious to the pending indictment against him. No police officers ever came by looking for him or leaving messages with family members. The State was utterly negligent in its failure to bring the Defendant before this Court in a timely fashion.
III.
	In determining whether post-indictment delay violated the Sixth Amendment, the Court must make four inquiries: (1) whether the delay before trial was uncommonly long; (2) whether the State or the Defendant is more to blame for that delay; (3) whether, in due course, the Defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether he suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
IV.
	Post-accusation delay of 8 months or longer has been found to be presumptively prejudicial. Clarke v. State, 928 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In the case at bar, the delay is longer than 8 months so it is presumed to be prejudicial, thus the speedy trial inquiry is triggered. The state has the burden of proof regarding rebutting the presumption of prejudice. Gonzales v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
V.
	The State has no evidence suggesting that the Defendant knew that he had an indictment pending against him and, in fact, he lived openly in San Antonio during this period. The Defendant has no blame for the delay in bringing him to court.
VI.
	In the case at bar, the delay is both extraordinary and inexcusable. The presumption of prejudice to the Defendant’s defense is neither “extenuated” nor “rebutted.” Doggett v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at 658. The delay has impaired the Defendant’s ability to defend himself.
	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully moves this Court to set this motion on the Court’s docket for an evidentiary hearing. The Defendant further prays that the Court find that the State’s unjustified and extraordinary delay in bringing the Defendant to trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and that the indictment be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,
GROSS & ESPARZA, PLLC
____________________________________
Michael C. Gross
State Bar No. 08534480
1524 North Alamo Street
San Antonio, Texas 78215
(210) 354-1919
(210) 354-1920 (Fax)

Attorney for the Defendant,
___________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
	I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was delivered to ___________, Assistant District Attorney, on the ___ day of __________ 20__.

__________________________

CAUSE NO. _____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
	§
V.	§	BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
	§
______________	§	_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER
	The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Speedy Trial Right is hereby:
_______________	GRANTED And the indictment is dismissed with prejudice.
_______________	DENIED 	

	SIGNED on the ____ day of _____________________ 20__.

____________________________________
							JUDGE PRESIDING