Sheffield v. State

Summary

The court held that the evidence was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient to support Sheffield’s malice-murder conviction, including the rejection of his alternative-burglary hypothesis. The court nevertheless vacated the order denying Sheffield’s constitutional speedy-trial motion because the trial court failed to calculate and weigh the delay properly and failed to attribute responsibility for substantial portions of the delay. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the speedy-trial motion using the correct analysis.