State v. Wayland

2020 ND 106 (2020) · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 7, 2020 · No. 20190274

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Joey Michael Wayland’s convictions for theft of property and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that continuing the trial from March 11, 2019, to April 8, 2019, did not violate his statutory or constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court declined to address his claim that a court-ordered mental health evaluation violated his right to remain silent because he raised the issue for the first time on appeal and did not establish obvious error.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Jon J. Jensen, Chief Justice; Gerald W. VandeWalle; Daniel J. Crothers; Jerod E. Tufte; Lisa Fair McEvers
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
May 7, 2020
Docket number
20190274
Procedural posture
Wayland appealed from a district court judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of theft of property and possession of drug paraphernalia. He argued that the case should have been dismissed for violation of his speedy-trial right and that an order requiring a mental-health evaluation violated his right to remain silent.
Standard of review
Speedy-trial decisions are reviewed de novo, while the district court's findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Unpreserved issues are reviewed only for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Joey Michael Wayland v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

speedy trialcriminal procedureappellate procedurepreservation of errorfourteenth amendment

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether continuing the trial from March 11, 2019, to April 8, 2019, violated Wayland's constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
  2. Whether the district court's order requiring Wayland to submit to a mental-health evaluation violated his constitutional right to remain silent, where the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

Holdings

  1. The continuance of the March 11, 2019, trial to April 8, 2019, did not violate Wayland's constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
  2. The court declined to address whether requiring Wayland to submit to a mental-health evaluation violated his right to remain silent because he raised the claim for the first time on appeal and did not assert that the alleged error constituted obvious error.

Key quotations

The four-part test includes the following: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the accused’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused. (¶ 8)
Although the reason for the continuance is absent from the record, and Wayland unambiguously asserted his right to a speedy trial, our de novo review leads us to the conclusion Wayland’s right to a speedy trial was not violated by the continuance of the March 11, 2019 trial to April 8, 2019. (¶ 9)

Factual background

Wayland was arrested on November 6, 2018, and charged with theft of property and possession of drug paraphernalia. He repeatedly asserted his right to a speedy trial, and the trial scheduled for March 11, 2019, was continued to April 8, then May 6, and ultimately July 30, 2019. His attorney requested a mental-health evaluation, which the court ordered over Wayland's objection. Wayland was represented by counsel when he sent a letter seeking dismissal based on speedy-trial grounds, but he did not articulate prejudice or the applicable four-factor analysis.

Procedural history

Wayland was arrested and charged on November 6, 2018. After several trial continuances, a jury trial was held on July 30, 2019, resulting in convictions. The district court did not rule on Wayland's written speedy-trial dismissal request, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the continuance did not violate the speedy-trial right and declining to review the unpreserved mental-evaluation claim absent an asserted obvious error.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…