Skip to main content

Cantu v. State

Citations

  • 253 S.W.3d 273
  • 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 583
  • 2008 WL 1958983

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a four-month delay is not a deprivation, but a seventeen-month delay is presumptively prejudicial
  • holding that seventeen-month delay is long enough to trigger analysis of all Barker factors
  • stating that reviewing courts consider evidence presented at speedy-trial hearing in light most favorable to trial court's ultimate ruling
  • explaining that the defendant has the burden of proving the assertion of the right and showing prejudice”
  • explaining that the defendant has the burden of proving the assertion of the right and showing prejudice”
  • noting that filing for dismissal rather than for a speedy trial “shows a desire to have no trial instead of a speedy one”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

328 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.