State v. Gwin

684 S.W.3d 762

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Amadeo D. GWIN, Appellant.

WD 86048

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: February 27, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, The Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge

Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Nathan J. Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

William J. Swift, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, and Karen King Mitchell and Janet Sutton, Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Amadeo Gwin appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of first-degree assault, § 565.050,¹ attempted disarming of a police officer, § 575.153, resisting arrest, § 575.150, attempted unlawful possession of a firearm, § 571.070, and interfering with a lawful detention or stop, § 575.150. Gwin raises two points on appeal. He claims the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial and (2) in allowing the State to cross-examine him about specific details of his prior convictions.² Finding no error, we affirm.

Background³

On October 5, 2022, the State filed a first amended information charging Gwin, an alleged prior and persistent offender, with one count each of first-degree assault, attempted disarming of a police officer, resisting arrest, attempted unlawful possession of a firearm, and interfering with a lawful detention or stop.⁴

At trial, the following evidence was adduced. On May 26, 2021, Jefferson City police received a call regarding a possible weapons offense near Broadway Street. Officers S.S. and E.L. responded, parking a couple of blocks away and approaching on foot. They saw four men: one (D.D.) in the front passenger seat of a parked vehicle and three others standing nearby. When a patrol car passed, D.D. appeared to place something under the passenger seat; all four men then moved quickly away from the vehicle.

Based on the nature of the call, the location of the vehicle, and the men’s movements, Officer S.S. believed that D.D. had placed a firearm under the seat. Officer S.S., who was in uniform, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the men to stop, but they refused and, instead, shouted obscenities at the officers. Officer E.L. caught up with one of the men (M.S.) and spoke with him. Officer S.S. continued to follow the other three men, asking them to stop so he could talk to them. Officer S.S. radioed for backup to cut the men off but, when another patrol car arrived, the men walked past it. Eventually, one of the three men (D.C.) stopped and spoke with a sergeant who had arrived at the scene. Gwin and D.D. continued walking.

Three or four minutes later, Officer S.S. caught up to Gwin and D.D. and grabbed them by the shoulders, telling them, "I need you to stop." Gwin shrugged his shoulder to remove Officer S.S.’s hand, but the officer’s other hand remained on D.D. At that point, Officer S.S. recognized Gwin, addressed him by name, and told him to calm down so they could talk. Gwin swore at Officer S.S. and tried to push him away. Officer S.S. still had a hand on D.D., so Gwin grabbed Officer S.S. and tried to separate him from D.D. Gwin then caused Officer S.S. to fall on his back, and Gwin straddled him and punched him in the chest. During the struggle, Gwin tried to remove Officer S.S.’s gun from its holster. Officer E.L. eventually pulled Gwin off of Officer S.S. Officer S.S. then grabbed Gwin’s arm, but he continued to struggle. Ultimately, it took three officers to subdue Gwin. Officer S.S. suffered minor injuries as a result of the altercation with Gwin.

Gwin testified that he and others were outside his grandmother’s house on Broadway when the officers approached. Officer S.S. came "directly at" Gwin who walked away. When Officer S.S. caught up to Gwin and D.D., Officer S.S. "grabbed [them] by [their] necks." When Gwin told Officer S.S. that he did not want to talk, Officer S.S. "tried to tackle [Gwin] from behind," and the two men fell to the ground. Gwin denied hurting Officer S.S. but admitted holding him down or standing over him and asking, "Why do you keep putting your hands on me." Gwin then heard someone say, "[G]et on the ground before they kill you," and he lie down with his hands behind his back. According to Gwin, he did not resist arrest, but Officer S.S. was aggressive toward him just as he had been during past encounters with Gwin.

The jury convicted Gwin on all counts. The court found Gwin to be "a prior and persistent felony offender" and sentenced him to twelve years for assault and seven years each for attempted disarming, resisting arrest, and attempted unlawful possession of a firearm, with all sentences to run concurrently. The court also sentenced Gwin to a year in the county jail for interfering with a lawful detention or stop. Gwin filed a motion for new trial in which he argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and in allowing the State to cross-examine him about specific details of his prior convictions. The court denied his new trial motion, and this appeal follows. Additional facts will be provided in the analysis, as necessary, to address Gwin’s points on appeal.

Analysis

Gwin raises two points, which we address in turn. He claims the trial court erred (1) in overruling his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and (2) in allowing the State to cross-examine him about specific details of his prior convictions.

Speedy Trial

A. Background Facts

[1] The following procedural history is relevant to Gwin’s speedy trial claim:

• May 27, 2021 - felony complaint filed in Case No. 21AC-CR01153 regarding the May 26, 2021 incident;

• May 28, 2021 - Gwin arrested;

• June 24, 2021 - Preliminary hearing scheduled but continued to June 25, 2021, because Public Defender’s Office had a "conflict for representation" and the case was transferred to the Special Public Defender;

• June 25, 2021 - Case continued to June 28, 2021, for a counsel status hearing because Special Public Defender has not yet entered an appearance;

• June 28, 2021 - Special Public Defender entered his appearance, and case continued to July 6, 2021, "for counsel status";⁵

• July 19, 2021 - motion for speedy trial filed;

• July 28, 2021 - indictment for the same charges filed in Case No. 21AC-CR01153-01;

• July 29, 2021 - motions for speedy trial and change of judge filed by Gwin; motion for change of judge granted on July 30, 2021, and new judge assigned on August 16, 2021;

• August 30, 2021 - arraignment hearing continued at Gwin’s request to September 14, 2021, and speedy trial request renewed;

• September 7, 2021 - motion to suppress evidence filed;

• September 14, 2021 - revised motion to suppress filed; jury trial set for October 14-15, 2021;

• September 30, 2021 - suppression healing held; parties agreed to continuance for additional discovery; trial scheduled for January 27-28, 2022, with pre-trial conference set for January 3, 2022;

• December 7, 2021 - motion to suppress granted; • January 3, 2022 - nolle prosequi filed by the State;⁶

• May 13, 2022 - complaint filed in Case No. 22AC-CR00950 regarding the May 26, 2021 incident;

• May 16, 2022 - Gwin arrested;

• May 19, 2022 - motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds filed, citing State’s bad faith dismissal and refiling of the case;

• May 26, 2022 - information filed (same charges) in Case No. 22AC-CR00950-01;

• May 31, 2022 - motion for change of judge filed by Gwin; motion granted on June 3, 2022, and new judge assigned on June 13, 2022;

• June 21, 2022 - motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds filed, citing State’s bad faith dismissal and refiling;

• July 15, 2022 - motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds is heard and denied; court and parties agreed to new trial date of October 18, 2022;

• August 22, 2022 - motion to suppress filed;

• August 24, 2022 - suppression hearing set for September 22, 2022;

• September 22, 2022 - suppression hearing continued at State’s request due to unavailability of witness; Gwin objected to continuance;

• October 4, 2022 - pre-trial conference held; suppression hearing set for October 13, 2022;

• October 5, 2022 - first amended information filed;

• October 13, 2022 - motion to suppress heard and denied; trial reset to

October 21, 2022, because State’s witness unavailable; M.S. (co-defendant) endorsed as defense witness;

• October 20, 2022 - order cancelling October 21, 2022 trial because M.S.’s trial had run longer than anticipated; Gwin objected to continuance;

• October 25, 2022 - trial reset for November 3, 2022;

• November 1, 2022 - renewed motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds filed; that motion was denied on November 2, 2022; and

• November 3-4, 2022 - trial held.

B. Standard of Review

[2–4] "The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Missouri Constitution." State v. Vickers, 560 S.W.3d 3, 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Fisher, 509 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)). "The federal and Missouri constitutions provide equivalent protection for a defendant’s right to a speedy trial." State v. James, 552 S.W.3d 590, 597 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304, 313 (Mo. banc 2015)). "The issue of whether the [d]efendant’s Sixth Amendment rights have been violated is a question of law, and therefore, appellate courts review de novo." Vickers, 560 S.W.3d at 14 (quoting Fisher, 509 S.W.3d at 751). However, "we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact." Id. (quoting Fisher, 509 S.W.3d at 751).

C. The trial court did not err in denying Gwin’s renewed motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.

[5] "Determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated requires a balancing of four factors: (1) the...