{ "id": 4243125, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Frank O. GARZA, Defendant-Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Garza", "decision_date": "2009-06-25", "docket_number": "No. 30,715", "first_page": "499", "last_page": "514", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "146 N.M. 499" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "212 P.3d 387" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2009-NMSC-038" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "967 So.2d 1222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8386639 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1230" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/967/1222-01" ] }, { "cite": "744 N.W.2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 8304724 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/744/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "836 A.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 9296071 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/836/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "781 N.E.2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79", "parenthetical": "\"The fact that appellant was brought to trial within a year of the murders can hardly allow the delay to be characterized as 'presumptively prejudicial.' \"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Ohio St.3d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St. 3d", "case_ids": [ 709925 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"The fact that appellant was brought to trial within a year of the murders can hardly allow the delay to be characterized as 'presumptively prejudicial.' \"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st-3d/98/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "744 N.W.2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 8306263 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/744/0760-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 F.3d 562", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 1882993 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/2/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 F.3d 714", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 7631363 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/92/0714-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 F.3d 11", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11887942 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/130/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 F.3d 692", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9103332 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/339/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 F.3d 891", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 8455275 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/468/0891-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.M. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1592813 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450", "parenthetical": "\"Whenever there is a delay of more than six months between the time of arraignment and the date of the trial, four factors are to be considered in determining whether a defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial.\"" }, { "page": "444", "parenthetical": "\"Whenever there is a delay of more than six months between the time of arraignment and the date of the trial, four factors are to be considered in determining whether a defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/108/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003-NMCA-051", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 15639 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/133/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMSC-030", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4243540 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/146/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 F.2d 375", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1386934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/617/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "769 F.2d 1544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 361041 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1547", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he settled rule in this circuit is that unless the first three Barker factors all weigh heavily against the government, the defendants must demonstrate actual prejudice.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/769/1544-01" ] }, { "cite": "707 F.2d 995", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1862017 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "998" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/707/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "474 U.S. 302", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6204451 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/474/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 F.3d 1254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9145167 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1264" }, { "page": "1265", "parenthetical": "first alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/390/1254-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 P.3d 222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "case_ids": [ 9222586 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p3d/93/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-007", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1427956 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/135/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "896 A.2d 198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 8425825 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/896/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 F.3d 548", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9112283 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/331/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 F.2d 903", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 970889 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/553/0903-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 F.3d 822", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 1537767 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "831" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/336/0822-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 P.3d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "case_ids": [ 8904486 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "800", "parenthetical": "weighing the third Barker factor neutrally where the defendant demanded a speedy trial throughout the proceedings, but \"also engaged in procedural maneuvers which had the result of delaying the trial\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p3d/121/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "523 F.2d 1177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1105866, 3695995 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1182" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/523/1177-01", "/us-app-dc/173/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 U.S. 434", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173133 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/412/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "474 A.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "778-79" }, { "page": "780", "parenthetical": "\"To constitute a speedy trial violation claimed prejudice to the defense of a criminal prosecution must relate to a material fact in issue.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Conn. 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 684602 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/192/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMSC-035", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 2550981 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/138/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 F.3d 486", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9394114 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/280/0486-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 F.3d 225", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9295837 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/352/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "505 U.S. 647", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1480837 ], "weight": 25, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" }, { "page": "657-58" }, { "page": "656" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "657" }, { "page": "657" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "655" }, { "page": "657-58" }, { "parenthetical": "citation and footnotes omitted" }, { "page": "651-52" }, { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/505/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 F.2d 628", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1127912 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/517/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "524 F.2d 834", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 3696031, 1100383 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us-app-dc/173/0280-01", "/f2d/524/0834-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 F.2d 144", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 885934 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/562/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 F.3d 79", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11139488 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/238/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 F.3d 1287", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 881173 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/433/1287-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 F.3d 1332", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 2839696 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1336-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/446/1332-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 F.3d 1236", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3352014 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1243" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/456/1236-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 F.3d 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 6048316 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597-600" }, { "page": "600" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/498/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "974 F.2d 1035", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10518363 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1036" }, { "page": "1036", "parenthetical": "\"Five years delay attributable to the government's mishandling of Shell's file, like the eight year delay in Doggett, creates a strong presumption of prejudice.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/974/1035-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 F.3d 758", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 6054952 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764" }, { "page": "764", "parenthetical": "\"[N]o showing of prejudice is required when the delay is great and attributable to the government. Instead, we presume prejudice. Further, [t]he presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time.\" (second alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/530/0758-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 F.3d 772", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3430613 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "776" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/560/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 F.3d 422", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3647063 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/566/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715096 ], "weight": 11, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" }, { "page": "567" }, { "page": "428" }, { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715045 ], "weight": 12, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" }, { "page": "236" }, { "page": "149" }, { "page": "238", "parenthetical": "Ransom, J., specially concurring" }, { "page": "152" }, { "page": "241", "parenthetical": "Wilson, J., dissenting" }, { "page": "153" }, { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 N.M. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1590332 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646" }, { "page": "594" }, { "page": "646" }, { "page": "594" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/109/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "2008-NMSC-062", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4242786 ], "weight": 24, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" }, { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 13" }, { "page": "\u00b628" }, { "page": "\u00b6 31" }, { "page": "\u00b632" }, { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/145/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 374", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11316280 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377-78", "parenthetical": "footnote, internal quotation marks and citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "footnote, internal quotation marks and citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "footnote, internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Colum. L.Rev. 1376", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Colum. L. Rev.", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1378" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 F.2d 796", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1669721 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "798" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/7/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S.Ct. 1283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 3653398 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1290", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/556/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6170322 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222-23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 U.S. 514", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9139028 ], "weight": 52, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" }, { "page": "522" }, { "page": "521" }, { "page": "519" }, { "page": "530" }, { "page": "530" }, { "page": "529-30" }, { "page": "530-31" }, { "page": "530" }, { "page": "533" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "528" }, { "page": "531" }, { "page": "529" }, { "page": "529" }, { "page": "532-33" }, { "page": "532" }, { "page": "528" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/407/0514-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1762, "char_count": 52154, "ocr_confidence": 0.669, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.333337003849081e-07, "percentile": 0.9177822722483048 }, "sha256": "46b41cd30f72e0a18b3434ab58a43641a201e0dbf80ec022e49fdb33e0eb37f9", "simhash": "1:385ae7f269eb05bd", "word_count": 8403 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:31.770781+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WE CONCUR: EDWARD L. CHAVEZ, Chief Justice, PATRICIO M. SERNA, RICHARD C. BOSSON, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justices." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Frank O. GARZA, Defendant-Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nMAES, Justice.\n{1} In this Opinion we review our speedy-trial jurisprudence and abolish the presumption that a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated based solely on the threshold determination that the length of delay is \u201cpresumptively prejudicial.\u201d Because Defendant has not shown any particularized prejudice that is cognizable under the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the weight of the other factors in the analysis do not overcome Defendant\u2019s failure to show prejudice, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm Defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\n{2} Though inapplicable in the present case, we also update our guidelines for determining the length of delay necessary to trigger the speedy trial inquiry to twelve months for simple eases, fifteen months for cases of intermediate complexity, and eighteen months for complex cases. We emphasize that these guidelines are merely thresholds that warrant further inquiry into a defendant\u2019s claimed speedy trial violation and should not be construed as bright-line tests dispositive of the claim itself.\nI. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n{3} Frank O. Garza (Defendant) was arrested late on June 28, 2006 for aggravated DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane. The State filed a criminal complaint in magistrate court on June 29, 2006, and Defendant was released on the same day. The total amount of time Defendant spent in jail was two hours, from 2:35 a.m. to 4:24 a.m.\n{4} The case remained in magistrate court, without apparent progress toward a trial, for four months. On November 2, 2006, the State refiled the charges in the Third Judicial District Court and the following day dismissed the ease without prejudice. Defendant made his first and only speedy trial demand on November 13, 2006 as part of his waiver of arraignment and plea of not guilty.\n{5} In the Third Judicial District Court, the case initially was assigned to Judge Bridgforth, but the case was reassigned and the trial date set and reset several times. The case was reassigned to Judge Murphy on January 19, 2007 and trial was set for March 8, 2007. Judge Murphy recused himself on February 8, 2007 and the case was reassigned to Judge Driggers. The trial was reset for April 27, 2007 before Judge Driggers. That trial date was vacated because the case was reassigned, once again to Judge Bridgforth, on February 22, 2007. Finally, the trial was set for May 4, 2007 before Judge Bridgforth.\n{6} Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on April 26, 2007, claiming that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court denied the motion, finding, in pertinent part,\nthat a four month delay in Magistrate Court before removal to District Court weighs against the State. This is a simple case and the additional delay, even if it is sometimes the Courts\u2019 own heavy trial docket, weighs slightly against the State. The case is now just past nine months which triggers the presumption of prejudice. Defendant has asserted his right to speedy trial. Defendant has suffered some actual prejudice in the form of restrictions imposed by pre-trial conditions of release and stress, but the Court feels this is not unusually great and weighs slightly against the State.\nDefendant entered a conditional guilty plea on May 4, 2007 to aggravated DWI, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(D)(l) (2005, prior to amendments through 2008), and failure to maintain a traffic lane, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-317, reserving the right to appeal the district court\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss based on a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.\n{7} The Court of Appeals reversed the district court in a memorandum opinion, which held that the ten-month and six-day delay between Defendant\u2019s arrest and the final trial setting, violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. State v. Garza, No. 27,731, slip op. at 2 (N.M.Ct.App. Oct. 5, 2007). The Court\u2019s opinion relied on the \u201cpresumption of prejudice\u201d created by the delay, stating that \u201c[e]ven though Defendant had just barely passed the nine-month threshold for triggering the presumption of prejudice, application of the remaining factors did not rebut this presumption.\u201d Id. The Court concluded, \u201cBecause the factual findings in this case tip all of the four factors in favor of Defendant, we do not believe that it is necessary to engage in an in-depth balancing that might occur when one or more factors weigh against a defendant. Accordingly, we reverse.\u201d Id. at 3.\n{8} We granted the State\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari, which raises one issue: whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that Defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial was violated because the Court essentially applied a bright-line rule that nine months was the maximum length of delay permissible for a simple case. We also asked the Office of the Public Defender to file an amicus brief, addressing the issue of whether we should change the current guidelines for determining when the length of delay becomes \u201cpresumptively prejudicial,\u201d and we permitted the State to respond to that issue. Because we conclude that our holding on this latter issue does not apply to the present case, we address it separately.\nII. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT DEFENDANT\u2019S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS VIOLATED\n{9} The State claims that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial was violated by a ten-month and six-day delay. The State argues that \u201c[t]he Court of Appeals\u2019 analysis is most at fault in its treatment of prejudice and presumed prejudice,\u201d because \u201c[i]f a delay of one month over the presumptively prejudicial minimum\u2014together with common bond restrictions\u2014were sufficient, the Barker test would become essentially a bright-line rule.\u201d We agree with the State that, in cases such as the present one in which all of the factors from Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), appear to weigh neutrally or minimally in the defendant\u2019s favor, the threshold determination of \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay may become essentially a bright-line rule. Because we perceive this result as contrary to the purpose of the speedy trial right, we undertake a review of our speedy trial ease law and attempt to clarify its application.\nA. Purpose of the Speedy Trial Right\n{10} The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused. Barker, 407 U.S. at 515, 92 S.Ct. 2182. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-23, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967), provides:\nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.\nU.S. Const, amend. VI; see also N.M. Const, art. II, \u00a7 14.\n{11} The speedy trial right, however, escapes precise definition. \u201cThe speedy-trial right is \u2018amorphous,\u2019 \u2018slippery,\u2019 and \u2018necessarily relative.\u2019 \u201d Vermont v. Britton, \u2014 U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1283, 1290, 173 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009) (citation omitted). \u201cIt is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Though speed is an important attribute of the right, \u201c[i]f either party is forced to trial without a fair opportunity for preparation, justice is sacrificed to speed.\u201d Frankel v. Woodrough, 7 F.2d 796, 798 (8th Cir.1925). As the United States Supreme Court stated in Barker, \u201cIt is ... impossible to determine with precision when the right has been denied. We cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Therefore, the substance of the speedy trial right is defined only through an analysis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.\n{12} Barker recognized that the right to a speedy trial is \u201cgenerieally different from any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the accused,\u201d because there is a societal interest in bringing an accused to trial. Id. at 519, 92 S.Ct. 2182. However, \u201c[t]he Bill of Rights ... does not speak of the rights and interests of the government.\u201d Richard Uviller, Barker v. Wingo: Speedy Trial Gets a Fast Shuffle, 72 Colum. L.Rev. 1376, 1378 (1972); see 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure \u00a7 18.1(b) (3d ed. 2007) (\u201c[I]t is rather misleading to say ... that this \u2018societal interest\u2019 is somehow part of the right.\u201d). The heart of the right to a speedy trial is preventing prejudice to the accused.\n[T]his constitutional guarantee has universally been thought essential to protect at least three basic demands of criminal justice in the Anglo-American legal system: (1) to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, (2) to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and (3) to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.\nSmith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 377-78, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969) (footnote, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the speedy trial right requires actual and articulable deprivation of a defendant\u2019s constitutional right. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182.\n{13} Violation of the speedy trial right is only determined through a review of the circumstances of a case, which may not be divorced from a consideration of the State and the defendant\u2019s conduct and the harm to the defendant from the delay. Id. Accordingly, we have adopted the balancing test created by the United States Supreme Court in Barker, which delineates the following analytical framework for evaluating a claimed speedy trial violation:\nIn Barker, the United States Supreme Court created a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. The Court identified four factors: (1) the length of delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the defendant\u2019s assertion of his right, and (4) the actual prejudice to the defendant that, on balance, determines whether a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated.\nState v. Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 7, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Barker\u2019s formulation \u201cnecessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. This analysis specifically rejects inflexible, bright-line approaches to analyzing a speedy trial claim. Id. at 529-30, 92 S.Ct. 2182.\n{14} In adopting the Barker analysis, this Court has similarly rejected bright-line analyses of the right to a speedy trial. Barker, however, was far from the model of clarity and has not provided a comprehensive analysis of this \u201cslippery\u201d right. Consequently, our courts have endeavored to adapt the Barker analysis to the unique factual circumstances presented in each ease. In the present case, we revisit certain aspects of the speedy trial right in light of Barker\u2019s extensive progeny with a focus on the underlying purpose of Barker, to provide a functional analysis of the right to a speedy trial.\nB. The Length of Delay: \u201cPresumptively Prejudicial\u201d Delay\n{15} Barker is ambiguous as to what role the length of delay plays on the balancing test as a whole. See id. The extent of Barker\u2019s discussion of this issue is as follows:\nThe length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance. Nevertheless, because of the imprecision of the right to speedy trial, the length of delay that will provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge.\nId. at 530-31, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (footnote omitted). The Court\u2019s use of the phrase \u201cpresumptively prejudicial delay\u201d has been the source of confusion, because it suggests that this threshold determination creates a presumption that may be determinative, but such a presumption is at odds with Barker\u2019s ad hoe, flexible balancing test. Id. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. The issue in the present case is whether, and to what extent, a determination that the length of delay is \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d carries forward into the balance of the factors and the determination of whether a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated.\n{16} With Barker\u2019s limited guidance, our cases have attempted to decipher the function of \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay on the overall inquiry into whether a defendant\u2019s right has been violated. In Zurla v. State, this Court held that a \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d length of delay creates an overall presumption that the defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated. 109 N.M. 640, 646, 789 P.2d 588, 594 (1990). Therefore, \u201c[o]nce the defendant has demonstrated presumptively prejudicial delay and thus triggered the Barker v. Wingo analysis, the presumption of prejudice does not disappear. Rather, the burden of persuasion rests with the State to demonstrate that, on balance, the defendant\u2019s speedy trial right was not violated.\u201d Id.\n{17} Work v. State, 111 N.M. 145, 803 P.2d 234 (1990), a plurality opinion, called the holding in Zurla into question. In Work, the plurality followed Zurla and explicitly rejected the function of the presumption of prejudice as \u201cmerely a \u2018triggering mechanism\u2019 that necessarily brings into play an inquiry of the other three Barker factors.\u201d Work, 111 N.M. at 147, 803 P.2d at 236. The plurality argued that the presumption of prejudice \u201c \u2018carries forward\u2019 and serves to shift to the [S]tate the burden to demonstrate that, on balance, the defendant\u2019s speedy trial right has not been violated.\u201d Id. Justice Ransom, in a specially concurring opinion, \u201cagree[d] with the principles of the continuing presumption of prejudice, weight, balancing, and burdens as relied upon in the opinion announced by the Court today,\u201d but concluded that the presumption of prejudice was entitled to little weight under the facts of that case. Id. at 149, 803 P.2d at 238 (Ransom, J., specially concurring).\n{18} Justices Baca and Wilson dissented from the Work plurality. Writing for the dissent, Justice Wilson argued that Zurla erroneously \u201ccarried forward\u201d the presumption of prejudice. Work, 111 N.M. at 152, 803 P.2d at 241 (Wilson, J., dissenting). The dissent further argued that Barker offered no support for the plurality\u2019s characterization of the presumption of prejudice, because Barker\u2019s balancing test \u201cevenhandedly weights] each piece of evidence without a compelling presumption tipping the scales one way or another.\u201d Work, 111 N.M. at 153, 803 P.2d at 242. On this issue, Justice Wilson concluded:\nIn my view, the better rule is to hold that the question of actual prejudice is a factor which must be determined on balance. If a defendant brings forth evidence of prejudice, the [S]tate will have the burden of rebutting such evidence. If no evidence of prejudice is offered, then the scales are balanced. In this latter situation the question of actual prejudice would be neither for nor against either party, but neutral.\nId.\n{19} Salandre v. State, 111 N.M. 422, 806 P.2d 562 (1991), resolved the disagreement expressed in Work. Salandre cited the Work plurality with approval and reaffirmed the holding in Zurla. Salandre reiterated that\n\u201c[p]resumptively prejudicial delay\u201d refers to prejudice to the fundamental right to a speedy trial, not to specific prejudice covered by the fourth [Barker ] element, much less simply to impairment of the defense at trial.... [0]nee the defendant demonstrates existence of presumptively prejudicial delay, \u201cthe burden of persuasion rests with the [Sjtate to demonstrate that, on balance, the defendant\u2019s speedy trial right was not violated.\u201d\nId. at 427, 806 P.2d at 567 (quoting Zurla, 109 N.M. at 646, 789 P.2d at 594). By holding that \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay creates the presumption that a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated, Zurla, Work, and Salandre require that the State affirmatively sway the balance of factors in its favor, otherwise the reviewing court must conclude that a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated. Under this rule, where the State fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to a dismissal of all charges based solely on the threshold determination that the length of delay was \u201cpresumptively prejudicial.\u201d\n{20} While other courts and commentators have struggled with this issue, the overwhelming majority have rejected an interpretation of Barker that creates the kind of presumption that our cases have adopted. Uviller, supra, at 1384-85. (\u201cWhether or not such a shift in the vital burden is wise, it seems clear that it is unintended by the Court. Rather, it is likely that the choice of the term \u2018presumptively prejudicial\u2019 in the duration discussion was simply inadvertent. Probably, the Court meant to say simply that a claim of denial of speedy trial may be heard after the passage of a period of time which is, pilma facie, unreasonable in the circumstances.\u201d). Though Barker\u2019s limited treatment of this issue leaves room for various interpretations, no federal circuit courts have adopted a rationale similar to ours, in which the determination of presumptive prejudice creates a presumption that the defendant\u2019s right has been violated. See 5 LaFave et al., supra, \u00a7 18.2(b) (\u201cThe reference to \u2018delay which is presumptively prejudicial\u2019 contributes to this confusion, but viewing the case in its entirety it seems fair to say that this phrase does not mean a period of time so long that it may actually be presumed the defense at trial would be impaired. Nor does it mean that once a sufficient time has been shown the prosecution has the burden of establishing that in fact there was no prejudice.\u201d (footnote omitted)). The Circuit Courts of Appeals uniformly treat the threshold inquiry of whether the delay is \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d as merely a triggering mechanism and do not carry forward any presumption based on this determination. See United States v. Harris, 566 F.3d 422, 432 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Erenas-Luna, 560 F.3d 772, 776 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mendoza, 530 F.3d 758, 764 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that rather than carrying prejudice forward from \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay, prejudice to the defendant may only be presumed \u201c \u2018when the delay is great and attributable to the government\u2019 \u201d (quoting United States v. Shell, 974 F.2d 1035, 1036 (9th Cir.1992))); United States v. Oviedo, 498 F.3d 593, 597-600 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236, 1243 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that the threshold determination of \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay merely \u201centitle[s the defendant] to a presumption of prejudice sufficient to proceed with the other considerations in the Barker analysis\u201d); United States v. Batie, 433 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir.2006) (\u201cThe first factor, length of delay, functions as a gatekeeper.\u201d); United States v. Trueber, 238 F.3d 79, 87 (1st Cir.2001); United States v. Carini, 562 F.2d 144, 148-49 (2nd Cir.1977) (\u201c[L]ength alone is not dispositive, the length of the delay ... does unquestionably \u2018trigger\u2019 our review of the three other factors enumerated in Barker and our consideration of such other circumstances as may be relevant.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Jones, 524 F.2d 834, 849 (D.C.Cir.1975); Ricon v. Garrison, 517 F.2d 628, 632-33 (4th Cir.1975) (replacing \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay with \u201csufficiently unusual delay\u201d).\n{21} In Zurla, Work, and Salandre, we considered only Barker\u2019s ambiguous language and failed to consider the manner in which the rule announced in Barker consistently has been applied by the Circuit Courts of Appeals and interpreted by scholarly commentators. In light of the overwhelming consensus among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and our policy of providing a functional analysis based on the facts and circumstances of each case, we abolish the presumption that a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated based solely on the threshold determination that the length of delay is \u201cpresumptively prejudicial.\u201d We hold instead that a \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d length of delay is simply a triggering mechanism, requiring further inquiry into the Barker factors.\n{22} We, therefore, modify the standards set forth in Zurla, Work, and Salandre to the extent they are inconsistent with this holding. However, where the defendant proves actual prejudice, see infra Part II.E, the State retains its burden of persuasion on the ultimate question of whether the defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial has been violated.\n{23} If a court determines that the length of delay is \u201cpresumptively prejudicial,\u201d then it should consider the length of delay as one of four factors in the analysis, none of which alone are sufficient to find a violation of the right. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182. As discussed in Part III of this Opinion, we are enacting new guidelines to aid district courts in determining when the length of delay may become \u201cpresumptively prejudicial.\u201d However, for purposes of this case, because the district court relied on our prior guidelines, we review the court\u2019s holding according to those guidelines. The district court found that the present ease is a \u201csimple\u201d case in which nine months was considered \u201cpresumptively prejudicial.\u201d Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 9, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254. Therefore, the delay of ten months and six days was sufficient to trigger inquiry into the Barker factors.\n{24} Considering the length of delay as one of the four Barker factors, the greater the delay the more heavily it will potentially weigh against the State. The delay in this case scarcely crosses the \u201cbare minimum needed to trigger judicial examination of the claim.\u201d Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992). Therefore, the delay was not extraordinary and does not weigh heavily in Defendant\u2019s favor. See id. at 657-58, 112 S.Ct. 2686 (holding that six years of delay attributable to the Government\u2019s negligence \u201cfar exceeds the threshold needed to state a speedy trial claim; indeed, we have called shorter delays \u2018extraordinary\u2019 \u201d); United States v. Serna-Villamal, 352 F.3d 225, 232 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that a three-year and nine-month delay was too short to weigh heavily in the defendant\u2019s favor); United States v. Bergfeld, 280 F.3d 486, 489-91 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that delay over five years weighed heavily in the defendant\u2019s favor); Shell, 974 F.2d at 1036 (\u201cFive years delay attributable to the government\u2019s mishandling of Shell\u2019s file, like the eight year delay in Doggett, creates a strong presumption of prejudice.\u201d).\nC. Reasons for the Delay\n{25} \u201cClosely related to length of delay is the reason the government assigns to justify the delay.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. \u201cThe reasons for a period of the delay may either heighten or temper the prejudice to the defendant caused by the length of the delay.\u201d Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 13, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254. Barker identified three types of delay, indicating that \u201cdifferent weights should be assigned to different reasons\u201d for the delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. First, Barker held that \u201c[a] deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government.\u201d Id. A defendant is more likely to prevail \u201cif [the defendant can] show that the Government had intentionally held back in its prosecution of him to gain some impermissible advantage at trial.\u201d Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656, 112 S.Ct. 2686. \u201cBarker stressed that official bad faith in causing delay will be weighed heavily against the government,\u201d and excessive bad-faith delay may present an overwhelming case for dismissal. Id. (citation omitted).\n{26} Second, Barker distinguished intentional delay from negligent or administrative delay, and held that \u201c[a] more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. \u201cAlthough negligence is obviously to be weighed more lightly than a deliberate intent to harm the accused\u2019s defense, it still falls on the wrong side of the divide between acceptable and unacceptable reasons for delaying a criminal prosecution once it has begun.\u201d Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657, 112 S.Ct. 2686. The degree of weight we assign against the State for negligent delay is closely related to the length of delay: \u201c[0]ur toleration of such negligence varies inversely with its protractedness, and its consequent threat to the fairness of the accused\u2019s trial.\u201d Id. at 657, 112 S.Ct. 2686 (citation omitted).\n{27} Finally, \u201ca valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182; see Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656, 112 S.Ct. 2686 (\u201cOur speedy trial standards recognize that pretrial delay is often both inevitable and wholly justifiable. The government may need time to collect witnesses against the accused, oppose his pretrial motions, or, if he goes into hiding, track him down.\u201d). Accordingly, we balance the reasonableness of the manner in which the State has moved a case toward trial \u201cagainst the costs of going forward with a trial whose probative accuracy the passage of time has begun by degrees to throw into question.\u201d Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656, 112 S.Ct. 2686.\n{28} The record reflects that the delay in the present case was negligent. The State asserts that the delay of four months in which this case sat in magistrate court before the State dismissed the charges and refiled in district court, were predicated on this Court\u2019s opinion in State v. Reinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040. In Heinsen, we held that, generally, the State will receive a new six-month period under Rule 5-604 upon dismissing a ease from magistrate court and refiling in district court, unless the State lacks \u201ca good and sufficient reason for doing so.\u201d Id. \u00b6 25. However, as it concerns the speedy trial right, the State\u2019s discretion to dismiss a criminal ease in magistrate court and reinstate charges in district court does not justify the delay. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the State caused this four-month delay intentionally or in bad faith. Therefore, we hold that this delay was negligent and weighs against the State.\n{29} The remainder of the delay is attributable to the multiple reassignments of judges in the district court. This delay falls within the administrative burdens on the criminal justice system, such as overcrowded courts, Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182, congested dockets or the unavailability of judges, State v. Davis, 192 Conn. 739, 474 A.2d 776, 778-79 (1984), or an understaffed prosecutor\u2019s office, Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 436, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973). For purposes of analyzing a speedy trial claim, this type of delay is considered negligent delay and is weighed against the State accordingly. Id,\n{30} Because the delay was negligent, the extent to which it weighs against the State depends on the length of the delay. As described above, the delay in this case extends only slightly beyond the threshold to trigger the speedy trial inquiry and, therefore, is not extraordinary. Accordingly, because the delay was negligent but not protracted, this factor weighs only slightly in Defendant\u2019s favor.\nD. Assertion of Defendant\u2019s Right\n{31} In Barker, the United States Supreme Court rejected \u201cthe rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial forever waives his right.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 528, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Instead, the Court held that \u201cthe better rule is that the defendant\u2019s assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy trial is one of the factors to be considered in an inquiry into the deprivation of the right.\u201d Id. This factor is closely related to the other Barker factors, because \u201c[t]he strength of [the defendant\u2019s] efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to some extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that [the defendant] experiences.\u201d Id. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182.\n{32} Generally, we assess the timing of the defendant\u2019s assertion and the manner in which the right was asserted. Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b628, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254. Thus, we accord weight to the \u201cfrequency and force\u201d of the defendant\u2019s objections to the delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 529, 92 S.Ct. 2182. We also analyze the defendant\u2019s actions with regard to the delay. See United States v. Sarvis, 523 F.2d 1177, 1182 (D.C.Cir.1975) (mitigating the force of the defendant\u2019s assertions of his right where motions asserting the right \u201cfollowed closely other defense motions which were bound to slow down the proceedings,\u201d such as a motion for additional time to file motions, a motion for appointment of new counsel, and a motion to reset the trial date); Sisneros v. State, 121 P.3d 790, 800 (Wyo. 2005) (weighing the third Barker factor neutrally where the defendant demanded a speedy trial throughout the proceedings, but \u201calso engaged in procedural maneuvers which had the result of delaying the trial\u201d). But see McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 831 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the defendant\u2019s two successful motions \u201cdisqualifying the trial court at precisely the point when the case was ready for trial\u201d had merit, and, therefore, did not harm the defendant's assertion of his right). Rights under this amendment are fundamental in nature so that a failure to assert them does not constitute waiver, but the timeliness and vigor with which the right is asserted may be considered as an indication of whether a defendant was denied needed access to speedy trial over his objection or whether the issue was raised on appeal as afterthought. United States v. Netterville, 553 F.2d 903, 914 (5th Cir.1977).\n{33} It is necessary, therefore, to closely analyze the circumstances of each ease. For example, a court should assign \u201cdifferent weight to a situation in which the defendant knowingly fails to object, from a situation in which his attorney acquiesces in long delay without adequately informing his client, or from a situation in which no counsel is appointed.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 529, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Similarly, a defendant \u201ccannot be blamed for not invoking his right to a speedy trial before\u201d he was aware of the charges against him. United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 557 (6th Cir.2003).\n{34} In the present ease, Defendant\u2019s single demand for a speedy trial, preceding his motion to dismiss, tucked within the waiver of arraignment and not guilty plea, was sufficient to assert his right. This assertion was not especially vigorous nor was it mitigated, however, by any apparent acquiescence to the delay on Defendant\u2019s part. Therefore, this factor weighs slightly in Defendant\u2019s favor. See Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 31, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254 (\u201cWe weigh this factor slightly in Defendant\u2019s favor, but note that Defendant\u2019s assertions were neither timely nor forceful.\u201d).\nE. Prejudice to the Defendant\n{35} \u201cThe United States Supreme Court has identified three interests under which we analyze prejudice to the defendant: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.\u201d Id. \u00b632 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As to the first two types of prejudice, \u201c[s]ome degree of oppression and anxiety is inherent for ever[y] defendant who is jailed while awaiting trial.\u201d Id. \u00b6 33 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, we weigh this factor in the defendant\u2019s favor only where the pretrial incarceration or the anxiety suffered is undue. Id. The oppressive nature of the pretrial incarceration depends on the length of incarceration, whether the defendant obtained release prior to trial, and what prejudicial effects the defendant has shown as a result of the incarceration. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532-33, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (\u201cThe time spent in jail awaiting trial has a detrimental impact on the individual. It often means loss of a job; it disrupts family life; and it enforces idleness. Most jails offer little or no recreational or rehabilitative programs. The time spent in jail is simply dead time. Moreover, if a defendant is locked up, he is hindered in his ability to gather evidence, contact witnesses, or otherwise prepare his defense.\u201d (footnote omitted)); see also Hartridge v. United States, 896 A.2d 198, 227 (D.C.2006) (\u201c[I]t cannot be denied that two-and-one-half years of pretrial incarceration ... one\u2019s life on indefinite hold, waiting for one\u2019s trial to commence \u2014 is very substantial prejudice, of the precise kind that the Speedy Trial Clause was meant to avoid.\u201d); State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, \u00b6 17, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061 (holding that where the defendant was incarcerated on other charges he \u201cwas not subject to oppressive pretrial incarceration\u201d); Berry v. State, 93 P.3d 222, 237 (Wyo.2004) (weighing pretrial incarceration heavily in the defendant\u2019s favor where the defendant was not free on bond, and \u201c[the defendant\u2019s] extended incarceration necessarily impacted his employment opportunities, financial resources and association\u201d). However, without a particularized showing of prejudice, we will not speculate as to the impact of pretrial incarceration on a defendant or the degree of anxiety a defendant suffers. See Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b632, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254 (\u201cDefendant does bear the burden of production on this issue----\u201d); see also Jackson v. Ray, 390 F.3d 1254, 1264 (10th Cir.2004) (\u201cThe burden of showing all types of prejudice lies with the individual claiming the violation and the mere \u2018possibility of prejudice is not sufficient to support [the] position that ... speedy trial rights [are] violated.\u2019 \u201d (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315, 106 S.Ct. 648, 88 L.Ed.2d 640 (1986))).\n{36} The third type of prejudice is the \u201cmost serious.\u201d Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Again, however, it is necessary for a defendant to substantiate this type of prejudice. For example, Barker states that \u201c[i)f witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because what has been forgotten can rarely be shown.\u201d Id. If the defendant asserts that the delay caused the unavailability of a witness and impaired the defense, the defendant must \u201cstate[] with particularity what exculpatory testimony would have been offered,\u201d and \u201c[t]he defendant must also present evidence that the delay caused the witness\u2019s unavailability.\u201d Jackson, 390 F.3d at 1265 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Richards, 707 F.2d 995, 998 (8th Cir.1983) (\u201cIn order for the appellee to carry his burden of showing prejudice, he must show that the missing witnesses could have supplied material evidence for the defense.\u201d); Davis, 474 A.2d at 780 (\u201cTo constitute a speedy trial violation claimed prejudice to the defense of a criminal prosecution must relate to a material fact in issue.\u201d).\n{37} Defendant, in the present case, spent two hours in jail and was then released with normal bond restrictions. We acknowledge that the district court found \u201csome actual prejudice in the form of restrictions imposed by pre-trial conditions of release and stress.\u201d However, \u201csome [non-particularized] prejudice\u201d is not the type of prejudice against which the speedy trial right protects. Therefore, we hold that Defendant has made no showing of prejudice that is cognizable under the fourth Barker factor.\nF. Balancing Test\n{38} The primary issue raised by the facts of this case is whether a court can find a violation of a defendant\u2019s speedy trial right without a particularized showing of prejudice. The United States Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in Doggett is instructive on this point. Doggett held that \u201caffirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim.\u201d Doggett, 505 U.S. at 655, 112 S.Ct. 2686. The facts of Doggett as they relate to the Barker factors are as follows: (1) the length of delay of eight and one-half years was \u201cextraordinary\u201d; (2) the reason for the delay was the government\u2019s negligence in prosecuting the defendant; (3) the defendant sufficiently asserted his right and did not acquiesce to the delay; and (4) the defendant failed to make a particularized showing of how he was prejudiced by the delay between his indictment and trial. Id. at 657-58, 112 S.Ct. 2686. The Court looked to the first three factors to determine whether the defendant\u2019s burden to show particularized prejudice could be excused. The Court concluded, \u201cWhen the Government\u2019s negligence ... causes delay six times as long as that generally sufficient to trigger judicial review, and when the presumption of prejudice, albeit unspecified, is neither extenuated, as by the defendant\u2019s acquiescence, nor persuasively rebutted, the defendant is entitled to relief.\u201d Id. (citation and footnotes omitted).\n{39} Thus, Doggett seemed to adopt the position of many lower courts, which generally require that defendants make an affirmative showing of particularized prejudice but excuse that requirement and presume prejudice if the other Barker factors weigh heavily in the defendant\u2019s favor. See, e.g., Mendoza, 530 F.3d at 764 (\u201c[N]o showing of prejudice is required when the delay is great and attributable to the government. Instead, we presume prejudice. Further, [t]he presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time.\u201d (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Oriedo, 498 F.3d at 600 (holding that where the defendant conceded that he suffered no particular prejudice, \u201cin some circumstances, prejudice may be presumed. This presumed prejudice, although insufficient to carry a speedy trial claim absent a strong showing on the other Barker factors is nonetheless part of the mix of relevant facts in the ultimate balancing analysis\u201d (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Mitchell, 769 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985) (\u201c[T]he settled rule in this circuit is that unless the first three Barker factors all weigh heavily against the government, the defendants must demonstrate actual prejudice.\u201d); Hill v. Wainwright, 617 F.2d 375, 379 n. 4 (5th Cir.1980) (\u201cWhen the first three factors of the Barker balancing test are heavily weighed against the government, the defendant does not have to demonstrate prejudice.\u201d). We similarly hold that generally a defendant must show particularized prejudice of the kind against which the speedy trial right is intended to protect. However, if the length of delay and the reasons for the delay weigh heavily in defendant\u2019s favor and defendant has asserted his right and not acquiesced to the delay, then the defendant need not show prejudice for a court to conclude that the defendant\u2019s right has been violated.\n{40} In the present ease, Defendant failed to show prejudice, and the other factors do not weigh heavily in Defendant\u2019s favor. Because Defendant failed to demonstrate particularized prejudice as a consequence of the ten-month and six-day delay, we cannot conclude that Defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial was violated. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals.\nIII. CHANGE IN CURRENT GUIDELINES\n{41} We asked the Public Defender\u2019s office to file an amicus brief, and permitted the State to respond, addressing the issue of whether we should change the current guidelines \u2014 nine months for simple cases, twelve months for cases of intermediate complexity, and fifteen months for complex cases \u2014 concerning \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d length of delay. In light of our conclusion that Defendant\u2019s right was not violated, we recognize that we need not address the guidelines for determining when the length of delay becomes presumptively prejudicial. However, we do so in the interest of providing guidance to the lower courts and to recognize recent changes in the administration of our criminal justice system.\n{42} We have provided broad guidelines for determining when the length of delay triggers further inquiry into the claim of a violation of the right to speedy trial. Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 9, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254. These guidelines provide a standard on which the district courts may predicate a review of the merits of a defendant\u2019s claim when the defendant shows that the length of delay has crossed the threshold of reasonable delay. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651-52, 112 S.Ct. 2686.\n{43} We implemented Rule 5-604(B) NMRA in response to Barker. \u201cRule 5-604(B), commonly referred to as the six-month rule, requires the commencement of trial in a criminal proceeding within six months of the latest of several different triggering events.\u201d Duran v. Eichwald, 2009-NMSC-030, \u00b6 2, 146 N.M. 341, 210 P.3d 238 (2009). The six-month rule is \u201cdesigned to assure prompt disposition of criminal cases.\u201d State v. Cardenas, 2003-NMCA-051, \u00b6 12, 133 N.M. 516, 64 P.3d 543 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As a case management tool, the six-month rule accounts for the amount of delay considered reasonable in bringing cases to trial. Therefore, the six-month rule helps us identify when the length of delay exceeds \u201ccustomary promptness\u201d for bringing a ease to trial. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652, 112 S.Ct. 2686.\n{44} Over time, the minimum length of delay considered \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d and the six-month rule have mirrored each other. This Court first held that a six-month delay is sufficient to trigger the Barker balancing test. State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446, 450, 774 P.2d 440, 444 (1989) (\u201cWhenever there is a delay of more than six months between the time of arraignment and the date of the trial, four factors are to be considered in determining whether a defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial.\u201d). In Salandre, this Court increased that threshold from six to nine months. 111 N.M. at 428, 806 P.2d 562. Salandre relied on language from Barker, stating, \u201c[Barker] recognized that, in a jurisdiction with a six-month rule such as New Mexico, a nine-month delay may be unacceptable under certain circumstances.\u201d Salandre, 111 N.M. at 428, 806 P.2d 562; see Barker, 407 U.S. at 528, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Salandre held that nine months was the minimum length of delay considered presumptively prejudicial for simple cases. Salandre, 111 N.M. at 428, 806 P.2d 562.\n{45} When Salandre was decided, Rule 5-604(B) required that cases be tried within six months but permitted extensions upon application to the Supreme Court. In 1998, we amended Rule 5-604 to permit the district court to grant a three-month extension before requiring parties to apply to this Court for an extension of time. Thus, the 1998 amendment reflected the conclusion in Salandre that for simple eases, nine months was the minimum length of delay considered presumptively prejudicial.\n{46} On August 13, 2007, we amended Rule 5-604 by increasing the amount of time that the trial court may grant as an extension from three to six months before the parties must apply to this Court. That amendment demonstrates the need for greater flexibility in the trial courts to grant extensions due to greater inherent delays involved in the prosecution of criminal cases. With that amendment we no longer require application to this Court in which the party must explain the \u201cextreme circumstances\u201d necessitating an extension until the length of delay exceeds twelve months. In contrast, our speedy trial cases have continued to indicate that a nine-month delay may be presumptively prejudicial, resulting in the anomalous possibility that a defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial may be violated by delay that is otherwise reasonable. The lack of congruence between our speedy trial standard and Rule 5-604 fails the purpose of our guidelines, which is \u201cto provide the courts and the parties with a rudimentary warning of when speedy trial problems may arise.\u201d Salandre, 111 N.M. at 427-28, 806 P.2d 562 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n{47} We hold, therefore, that one year is the appropriate guideline for determining when the length of delay for a simple case may be considered presumptively prejudicial. This is consistent with the majority of other jurisdictions, both federal and state. The federal circuit courts are of a general consensus that delay of approximately one year may be considered presumptively prejudicial. See, e.g., United States v. Watford, 468 F.3d 891, 901 (6th Cir.2006) (\u201cWe have stated that a delay is presumed prejudicial when it exceeds one year.\u201d); United States v. Titlbach, 339 F.3d 692, 699 (8th Cir.2003) (\u201cA delay approaching a year may meet the threshold for presumptively prejudicial delay requiring application of the Barker factors.\u201d); United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11, 21 (1st Cir.1997) (\u201cThe Supreme Court has said that the lower courts have generally found postaccusation delay \u2018presumptively prejudicial\u2019 at least as it approaches one year. We shall assume, under the foregoing, that the fifteen[-]month delay in this case was \u2018presumptively prejudicial\u2019 so as to trigger further inquiry.\u201d (citations omitted)); United States v. Walker, 92 F.3d 714, 717 (8th Cir.1996) (\u201cThe court acknowledged that lower courts had concluded that, depending on the charges, a delay that approaches one year would be \u2018presumptively prejudicial,\u2019 triggering the speedy trial inquiry and appeared to accept that conclusion. The 37-month delay in this case is thus sufficient to trigger the speedy trial analysis.\u201d (citations omitted)); Robinson v. Whitley, 2 F.3d 562, 568 (5th Cir.1993) (\u201cThis circuit generally requires a delay of one year to trigger speedy trial analysis.\u201d). State courts are more divided on the appropriate length of delay considered presumptively prejudicial, but the majority of states consider a delay of one year as the benchmark for presumptive prejudice. See, e.g., State v. Fischer, 744 N.W.2d 760, 770 (N.D.2008) (\u201cA delay of one year or more is \u2018presumptively prejudicial,\u2019 triggering an analysis of the other speedy trial factors.\u201d); State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27, 781 N.E.2d 72, 79 (2002) (\u201cThe fact that appellant was brought to trial within a year of the murders can hardly allow the delay to be characterized as \u2018presumptively prejudicial.\u2019 \u201d); State v. Zmayefski, 836 A.2d 191, 194 (R.I.2003) (\u201cA delay longer than one year is \u2018presumptively prejudicial.\u2019\u201d); State v. Tiegen, 744 N.W.2d 578, 585 (S.D.2008) (\u201cDelays of over a year are presumptively prejudicial; delays of less than a year are not.\u201d). But see Murray v. State, 967 So.2d 1222, 1230 (Miss.2007) (\u201cThis Court has previously stated \u2018that any delay of eight (8) months or longer is presumptively prejudicial.\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)).\n{48} Consistent with the 2007 amendment to Rule 5-604 and the consensus of our sister states and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, we adopt one year as a benchmark for determining when a simple case may become presumptively prejudicial. Accordingly, we also shift the guidelines for cases of greater complexity: Fifteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for intermediate cases and eighteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for complex cases.\n{49} We emphasize that these guidelines should not be construed as bright line tests. Rather, they are meant to guide the district courts\u2019 determination of \u201cpresumptively prejudicial\u201d delay. The situation may arise where a defendant alerts the district court to the possibility of prejudice to his defense and the need for increased speed in bringing the ease to trial, i.e., the impending death of a key witness. Where that possibility is realized and the defendant suffers actual prejudice as a result of delay, these guidelines will not preclude the defendant from bringing a motion for a speedy trial violation though the delay may be less than one year. However, it will then be up to the district court to decide whether the delay was sufficient to require further inquiry into the speedy trial analysis.\n{50} This shift in the applicable guidelines is predicated on the 2007 amendment to Rule 5-604, which became effective on August 13, 2007. This shift, therefore, was not foreshadowed prior to that date, and the district courts were not on notice that the old guidelines did not accurately represent the amount of delay that should trigger a speedy trial inquiry. Because these time thresholds are merely guidance to the district courts, where the courts have relied on the old guidelines prior to August 13, 2007, we will not apply the new guidelines to our review on appeal. Therefore, these guidelines apply only to speedy trial motions to dismiss initiated on or after August 13, 2007. Though it would make no difference in the ultimate result, we have not applied the new guidelines in the present case, because the district court heard and ruled on Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on April 27, 2007.\nIV. CONCLUSION\n{51} For the above stated reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm Defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\n{52} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nWE CONCUR: EDWARD L. CHAVEZ, Chief Justice, PATRICIO M. SERNA, RICHARD C. BOSSON, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justices.\n. Article II, Section 14 ol the New Mexico Constitution provides:\nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend himself in person, and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have the charge and testimony interpreted to him in a language that he understands; to have compulsory process to compel the attendanee of necessary witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.\nWe have not previously decided, and Defendant does not argue here, whether New Mexico's speedy trial guarantee should be interpreted differently than the Sixth Amendment. See State v. Maddox, 2008-NMSC-062, \u00b6 6, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254.", "type": "majority", "author": "MAES, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gary K. King, Attorney General, Anita Carlson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.", "Pickett Law Firm, L.L.C., Mark L. Pickett, Mollie C. McGraw, Las Cruces, NM, for Respondent.", "Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, Nancy M. Hewitt, Appellate Defender, Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Amicus Curiae, New Mexico Public Defender." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2009-NMSC-038\n212 P.3d 387\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Frank O. GARZA, Defendant-Respondent.\nNo. 30,715.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 25, 2009.\nGary K. King, Attorney General, Anita Carlson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.\nPickett Law Firm, L.L.C., Mark L. Pickett, Mollie C. McGraw, Las Cruces, NM, for Respondent.\nHugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, Nancy M. Hewitt, Appellate Defender, Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Amicus Curiae, New Mexico Public Defender." }, "file_name": "0499-01", "first_page_order": 529, "last_page_order": 544 }