Do judges always call your dockets and then ask if the State announces ready on all cases? Mine does, and now the question has come up to what exactly I am agreeing to be ready for.
If the defense and I are under the impression we are doing a 4th amendment suppression hearing, but he has also filed a gatekeeper motion, by announcing ready to the general docket call, am I saying I am ready to respond to any and all motions on file by the defense?
By announcing ready for trial, and proceeding to trial, does that mean I cannot then request a continuance for sentencing?
What rule does announcing ready refer to?
And finally, if I say "not ready," what happens? Can judge tell me to proceed anyway? Speedy trial issue? Do I have to announce ready for a sentencing hearing if two weeks before I announced ready for the jury trial?
Posts: 526 | Location: Del Rio, Texas | Registered: April 17, 2006
It would appear most of the answers to your question must relate to a local rule. In other words, what is the stated purpose of the docket call? So far as I know, there is nothing in the CCP dealing with "docket calls". Are the cases being called for trial scheduling or something else? Assuming sentencing is to take place other than before the jury summoned for trial, then I would think you are not necessarily announcing ready for the punishment phase. Your judge should be able to answer the questions.
In any event, your can always move for a continuance after announcing ready. It just may require more explaining. Whether a continuance requested by the State violates a defendant's right to a speedy trial would generally be the issue, not whether the State announces "not ready." Denial of the Sixth Amendment right is determined as follows: A "deliberate attempt to delay the trial" should be weighed heavily against the government. A "more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighed [against the government] less heavily." A valid reason for the delay should not be weighed against the government at all. (valid reason for the delay "should serve to justify appropriate delay").
Long story short, defense offered to stipulate to a prior DWI and then the day before sentencing changed his mind. I needed time to gather some documents to prove up the prior--I had the prior certified copy but no way to prove it was my defendant. My motion for continuance was denied the day before sentencing and when I reurged it to the judge before sentencing in court he said "you announced ready for trial, you should have been ready." So I thought there was some significance to announcing ready that I was not aware of. I guess it is just local and I have not encountered it before because I have never needed a continuance that wasn't granted. My moral is, I guess, to be "ready"!
Posts: 526 | Location: Del Rio, Texas | Registered: April 17, 2006
That sounds draconian, but the state is not entitled to a fair trial, so I guess the defendant got to eat his cake. I attempted to get the legislature to adopt HB2259 to solve such problems (and let the truth shine), but it never even got to a committee vote. How art. 33.08 gets applied on the local level would likely make for some interesting stories.
I don't see how your judge can hold you to a "ready" announcement when the circumstances have clearly changed, especially if you are relying on something the defense told you. What if a witness has a car accident on the way to court? What if one of the lawyers becomes ill before trial? Seems to me that there are many reasons why one might truthfully announce ready on Monday, and then be not ready on Friday. The fact that your "not-readiness" was due to good faith reliance on the defendant's (or his lawyer's) representation should probably estop him from complaining about a delay when he backs out.
That said, I think the real moral of your story is that you can't trust defendants. Just because his lawyer says he'll stipulate doesn't always mean that he will. If you're going to rely on a stipulation, get him to sign it before the clerk and have it filed beforehand. Otherwise, count on him backing out at the last minute and prepare accordingly.
Posts: 622 | Location: San Marcos | Registered: November 13, 2003
My predecessor filed a "ready letter" with each case, indicating that the State was ready to proceed on the day of filing (yeah, right...)
Since I am dealing with a judge who thinks nothing of setting 40-50 cases for one day, I no longer do that, as I may be forced into a position of announcing "not ready" with a docket that size.
When the delay is "unreasonable" or is sought for ends that do not serve the ends of justice. See cmts. 3-5. Certainly, unreasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. To paraphrase Mr. Gump, "unreasonable is as unreasonable does."
Posts: 1233 | Location: Amarillo, Texas, USA | Registered: March 15, 2001
