Does a defendant's speedy trial motion extend the statutory deadline? State v. Hankerson Explained

In State v. Hankerson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Statute can ironically extend the very deadline the defendant seeks to enforce.

Background and Facts

Enoch Hankerson was charged with multiple felonies in 2002. While incarcerated, he filed a notice requesting disposition of pending charges under Utah Code § 77-29-1, triggering the statute’s 120-day trial requirement. However, prison officials initially rejected his first two notices due to insufficient funds in his account. His third notice was accepted and forwarded on May 17, 2002. At a July 30 pretrial conference, Hankerson’s counsel revealed for the first time that earlier notices had been filed, with the first having an effective date of April 9. Counsel then filed a motion to dismiss on August 2, with an evidentiary hearing held August 9. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded to trial on August 14-15.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court properly denied Hankerson’s motion to dismiss when his trial occurred beyond the original 120-day period under the Speedy Trial Statute. Specifically, the court examined whether the delay caused by Hankerson’s own motion to dismiss constituted good cause under the statute.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied a two-step analysis: first determining when the 120-day period commenced and expired, then evaluating whether good cause excused any delay. The court found the 120-day period began April 9 and expired August 7. Because trial occurred on August 14-15, the court needed to determine if good cause justified the delay. Citing State v. Banner, the court held that “delay caused to hear [a] defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial” constitutes good cause excusing the prosecution’s failure to meet the deadline. The trial court properly extended the period by ten days to account for the motion hearing.

Practice Implications

This decision creates a paradox for defendants: filing a speedy trial motion extends the very deadline they seek to enforce. Practitioners should calculate whether the delay caused by motion practice will exceed any potential violation of the original deadline. Additionally, the decision highlights the importance of proper notice filing procedures in custodial settings and ensuring institutional policies don’t obstruct statutory rights.