Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Kansas v. Ricky Dion Dunklin
Date: 12-06-2024
Case Number: 19 CR 432
Judge: Kendra S. Lewison
Court: District Court, Riley County, Kansas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Riley County, Kansas District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Manhattan Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
On August 21, 2019, the State charged Dunklin in Riley County case No. 19 CR 432 with aggravated battery and one count of aggravated domestic battery. Although Dunklin appeared before the district court on September 24, 2019, and October 19, 2019, he requested a continuance at each hearing. Another hearing was set for November 19, 2019, but Dunklin appeared late. As a result, the district court continued the hearing to December 3, 2019. On that date, Dunklin requested a preliminary hearing.
* * *
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a defendant's "right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI; see State v. Queen, 313 Kan. 12, 15-16, 482 P.3d 1117 (2021); State v. Owens, 310 Kan. 865, 872, 451 P.3d 467 (2019). This constitutional right to a speedy trial is also protected by section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. State v. Shockley, 314 Kan. 46, 61, 494 P.3d 832 (2021). Unlike the statutory right to a speedy trial-which was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic-the constitutional speedy trial provision is not defined by a strict timeframe. Instead, the determination of whether the constitutional right has been violated depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Barker, 407 U.S. at 521-22; see State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558, 561, 519 P.3d 456 (2022).
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT. The case addresses an appeal by the defendant asserting a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The appellate court evaluated the claim under the Barker v. Wingo framework, which considers factors such as the length of delay, reasons for delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice against the defendant, ultimately concluding that the trial delays were justifiable, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the defendant's own actions, and thus the right to a speedy trial was not violated.
Key Phrases Aggravated battery conviction. Constitutional right to a speedy trial. COVID-19 pandemic delays. Motion to dismiss denied. Judicial consideration of Barker factors.
Manhattan, Kansas criminl defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with aggravated battery and misdemeanor domestic battery.
On August 21, 2019, the State charged Dunklin in Riley County case No. 19 CR 432 with aggravated battery and one count of aggravated domestic battery. Although Dunklin appeared before the district court on September 24, 2019, and October 19, 2019, he requested a continuance at each hearing. Another hearing was set for November 19, 2019, but Dunklin appeared late. As a result, the district court continued the hearing to December 3, 2019. On that date, Dunklin requested a preliminary hearing.
* * *
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a defendant's "right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI; see State v. Queen, 313 Kan. 12, 15-16, 482 P.3d 1117 (2021); State v. Owens, 310 Kan. 865, 872, 451 P.3d 467 (2019). This constitutional right to a speedy trial is also protected by section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. State v. Shockley, 314 Kan. 46, 61, 494 P.3d 832 (2021). Unlike the statutory right to a speedy trial-which was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic-the constitutional speedy trial provision is not defined by a strict timeframe. Instead, the determination of whether the constitutional right has been violated depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Barker, 407 U.S. at 521-22; see State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558, 561, 519 P.3d 456 (2022).
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT. The case addresses an appeal by the defendant asserting a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The appellate court evaluated the claim under the Barker v. Wingo framework, which considers factors such as the length of delay, reasons for delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice against the defendant, ultimately concluding that the trial delays were justifiable, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the defendant's own actions, and thus the right to a speedy trial was not violated.
Key Phrases Aggravated battery conviction. Constitutional right to a speedy trial. COVID-19 pandemic delays. Motion to dismiss denied. Judicial consideration of Barker factors.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Kansas v. Ricky Dion Dunklin?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard State of Kansas v. Ricky Dion Dunklin?
This case was heard in District Court, Riley County, Kansas, KS. The presiding judge was Kendra S. Lewison.
Who were the attorneys in State of Kansas v. Ricky Dion Dunklin?
Plaintiff's attorney: Riley County, Kansas District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Manhattan Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Kansas v. Ricky Dion Dunklin decided?
This case was decided on December 6, 2024.