Background
Josiah English III was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of endangerment after his ex-wife, B.G., was fatally shot outside the domestic-violence shelter where she was living with their two children. The shooting occurred the morning after English and B.G. testified at a contested custody hearing. A jury ultimately convicted English on all three charges, and the superior court imposed a natural-life sentence for murder and concurrent one-year sentences for endangerment.
More than six years elapsed between English’s February 2017 indictment and his March 2023 trial. The case was treated as a death-penalty prosecution for more than four years, underwent extended competency proceedings, involved several changes of counsel and advisory counsel, and generated more than 1,100 superior-court filings. English eventually represented himself with advisory counsel and argued on appeal that the delay violated his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right, that prison restrictions denied him meaningful access to the courts, and that the trial judge was biased and denied him a fair trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed English’s convictions and sentences. Applying the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo, the court held that the six-year delay was sufficient to require a full speedy-trial analysis but did not establish a constitutional violation. Much of the delay arose from stipulated continuances, competency proceedings prolonged substantially by English’s refusal to participate, his changes of counsel, his numerous filings, and his own requests to postpone trial. Although English repeatedly asserted his speedy-trial right, he later acknowledged that he was not prepared for trial and requested additional time.
The court also concluded that English failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to sustain his speedy-trial claim. His prolonged detention, anxiety, separation from his children, and generalized assertions that memories had faded did not show that the delay substantially impaired his defense. The court further held that English had meaningful access to the courts through counsel or advisory counsel and extensive access to records and legal authority, as reflected in his appellate filings. His complaints about the trial judge’s rulings and courtroom management did not establish bias, partiality, or structural error.
Finally, the court deemed waived three additional claims concerning the denial of motions to disqualify the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, recuse the county’s superior-court judiciary, and grant a new trial. English listed those issues but did not develop supporting arguments in his opening brief.
Key Takeaways
- A six-year pretrial delay triggered a full constitutional speedy-trial analysis, but the delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment where substantial portions resulted from the defendant’s conduct, competency proceedings, stipulated continuances, and defense requests for more preparation time.
- Lengthy pretrial incarceration, anxiety, and generalized claims of faded memories did not, without a concrete showing that the defense was impaired, establish the required prejudice.
- Adverse rulings, enforcement of courtroom rules, and warnings that self-represented status could be revoked for noncompliance did not establish judicial bias or denial of a fair trial.
- Issues merely listed in an opening brief without developed argument are waived on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that even an unusually long delay does not automatically establish a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation. Arizona courts will examine responsibility for each period of delay, the defendant’s litigation conduct and requests for continuances, and whether the delay concretely impaired the defense.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), but it provides a practical example of how courts evaluate complex-case delays involving competency proceedings, self-representation, and repeated pretrial filings.