BY THE COURT
a criminal defendant asserts a violation of his or her right
to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas
Constitution Bill of Rights, Kansas courts weigh four
nonexclusive factors: the length of delay, the reason for the
delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and
prejudice to the defendant. The court balances the factors,
weighing the conduct of both prosecution and accused. Because
the test requires a balancing, none of these factors is a
necessary or sufficient condition for finding a violation.
right to a speedy trial guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas
Constitution Bill of Rights applies in juvenile offender
proceedings under the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code,
K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2301 et seq.
length-of-delay factor is a triggering mechanism in a speedy
trial analysis. Until there is some delay that is
presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry
into the other factors applied in a speedy trial analysis.
if a defendant pushes for delay in order to gain some
advantage, the delay itself can be excessive and
presumptively prejudicial. Complexity is generally the
determinative factor separating a delay that is presumptively
prejudicial from one that is not.
Under the facts of this case, the defendant failed to
establish a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed September 15, 2017. Appeal from Sedgwick
District Court; William S. Woolley, judge.
Clayton J. Perkins, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office,
argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Dan'Sha Owens appeals a district court order rejecting
his argument that a 19-month delay between his arrest and
trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial as
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of
Rights. In part, Owens argues a Court of Appeals panel erred
in holding that the six months Owens spent in juvenile
detention should not be counted in determining the length of
the delay. See State v. Owens, No. 115, 441, 2017 WL
4082317, at *4 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion). He
also argues the panel erred in weighing the factors used by
courts when analyzing a constitutional speedy trial claim.
agree Owens' six-month period of juvenile detention
should be included in a calculation of how long it took to
get to trial. But Owens has not established a violation of
his constitutional right to a speedy trial, even considering
the full 19-month delay rather than the 13 months considered
by the panel. We affirm the district court and the Court of
Appeals. See Owens, 2017 WL 4082317, at *1
and Procedural Background
late evening hours of February 16, 2012, two men approached
Nathan Davis after he exited his vehicle in the parking lot
of his apartment complex. One of the men- later identified as
Owens-pointed a gun at Davis and demanded his car keys. Davis
handed over his keys, and the two men got into Davis'
vehicle and drove away. Davis immediately called 911 and told
a dispatcher his car had been stolen at gunpoint. He
described the man holding the gun as a black male, 20 to 22
years old, about 6 feet tall with a stocky build, and wearing
a black hooded sweatshirt, red or black ball cap, and blue
nearby law enforcement officer, Brent Johnson, heard the
information relayed by dispatch and saw a vehicle matching
the description of Davis' car stopped in the middle of
the street a few blocks from Davis' apartment. Officer
Johnson activated his patrol car's sirens and emergency
lights. The man seated in the driver's seat of Davis'
vehicle exited and ran away. Officer Johnson chased the man
on foot through the surrounding residential area but lost
sight of him a few minutes into the pursuit. Officer Johnson
described the suspect as a black male wearing blue jeans,
white tennis shoes, a red baseball cap, and a black jacket.
Johnson maintained a perimeter around the area where he
believed the suspect was likely hiding while waiting for
backup officers to arrive. A K-9 officer soon arrived and
began searching the area with his police dog. The officers
found a black male-later identified as Owens-wearing a black
hooded sweatshirt, white tennis shoes, and brightly colored
pajama pants hiding behind a tree in the back yard of a
nearby residence. The officers arrested Owens and discovered
a red and black baseball cap in the same yard. The officers
also located a silver handgun in the yard of another nearby
residence. But they did not find any blue jeans.
officers brought Davis to the location where they held Owens.
Davis identified Owens as the man who pointed the gun at him
and stole his car. Officers found a cell phone in Davis'
car, and they later identified it as belonging to Owens.
State originally alleged Owens committed juvenile offenses;
he was 17 at the time. After about six months, the State
dismissed the juvenile case and filed a criminal information,
charging Owens with aggravated robbery, criminal use of a
weapon, and criminal deprivation of property. After the
defense made 10 requests for continuance, Owens filed a pro
se motion for new counsel. In part, he complained his
attorney had been seeking continuances without his consent
and without ensuring that Owens was present at continuance
hearings. But Owens withdrew his request for new counsel when
told his case would be given a "hard jury trial
setting." The trial began just more than 19 months after
trial, Officer Johnson identified Owens as the man he chased
and officers later arrested. Officer Johnson testified Owens
was wearing blue jeans when he began chasing him but was
wearing brightly colored pajama pants when he was
apprehended. A post-arrest photo of Owens was admitted into
evidence showing the pajama pants and other clothing he was
wearing at the time of his arrest. Davis identified the man
in the photograph as the person who stole his car at gunpoint
but noted the difference in pants. Davis also identified the
gun the officers discovered as the one Owens had used. Owens
took the stand and claimed his phone had been stolen while he
was playing basketball near where he was arrested. He denied
being involved in the aggravated robbery of Davis.
jury convicted Owens as charged. He appealed his convictions
and sentence, raising five issues. The Court of Appeals
affirmed, finding no reversible error. See Owens,
2017 WL 4082317, at *1.
timely petitioned for our review. We granted review only as
to Owens' claim that the delay between his arrest and
trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The State filed a conditional cross-petition for review,
arguing in part that the panel erred in one aspect of its
speedy trial analysis-specifically, in finding the length of
the delay presumptively prejudicial. We granted only that
portion of the State's request for review.
court's jurisdiction is proper. See K.S.A. 20-3018(b)
(petition for review of Court of Appeals decision); see also
Supreme Court Rule 8.03(b) and (c) (2019 Kan. S.Ct. R. 53)
(petition for review ...