A Limestone County judge has dismissed charges of first-degree sodomy and sexual abuse of a child under age 12 that had been filed against a California man.

The sodomy charge against Julio Cesar Valencia, 65, of 730 E. Evelyn Ave., Sunny Vale, was dismissed due to lack of speedy trial, a right guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The sodomy case had been pending for more than eight years.

Valencia, who had been free on $100,000 bond pending trial since his arrest on Feb. 12, 2013, is now clear of the four charges against him. The alleged abuse, which is not detailed in court documents, occurred in the 1980s.

In February, Circuit Judge Chadwick Wise — who took office for the first time in January — dismissed three charges of sexual abuse of a child under age 12 because the statute upon which Valencia was charged was approved in 2006 and the alleged crimes occurred before that.

On March 8, Wise dismissed the remaining sodomy charge because he found the case against Valencia had lingered so many years it violated the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

The Sixth Amendment says a person accused of a crime has the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to an attorney, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know the charge against him and to know the identity of his accuser.

On May 14, 2008, a Limestone County grand jury indicted (formally charged) Valencia on charges of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. Kristi Valls was Limestone district attorney during this time, from 2005 to 2010. Law enforcement did not arrest Valencia during her tenure. 

On June 18, 2012, a Limestone County grand jury re-indicted Valencia on first-degree sodomy and three counts of sexual abuse of a child under age 12, and Valencia was arrested for the first time and released on bond. (Brian Jones was Limestone district attorney from 2011 to 2016 and was re-elected in 2016 to another six-year-term.)

Years passed

On May 7, 2013, Valencia’s attorney, Dan Totten of Athens, asked the court to dismiss the three sexual abuse counts because the grand jury had indicted his client under a law adopted in July 2006, after the alleged crimes were to have occurred.

On Feb. 16, Totten filed a seven-page brief asking the court to dismiss the remaining sodomy charge because he said the state, represented by the Limestone County District Attorney’s Office, had violated his client’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He argued several points in the brief, among them that the state’s delay of eight years, nine months from Valencia’s initial indictment was prejudicial and unreasonable.

He also argued the following:

“In order to pursue a defense, the defendant would now be expected to track down witnesses to an event which allegedly occurred over 35 years ago, and expect them to remember facts relating to his arrest.

Totten wrote, “If the defendant had been prosecuted in a timely manner, he could have secured the testimony of witnesses who were present while their recollections were still fresh. After this extended passage of time, it will be difficult to locate witnesses, and the memory of those witnesses will certainly have faded.”

He said all police investigators are deceased, except one who is a minor participant, and is dying of cancer. He said the doctor who examined the alleged victim is dead and his testimony would have shown no evidence of sexual abuse.

On Feb. 17, Wise dismissed the three sexual abuse counts.

On March 8, Wise dismissed the remaining sodomy count due to lack of a speedy trial.

In his two-page order, Wise wrote, in part: “Upon a thorough review of the record in this case, the court finds there was no legitimate reason for the 49-month delay in prosecution” (between the first indictment in May 2008 and when he was re-indicted on different charges in June 2012.)  

He wrote that the defendant “suffered actual prejudice as a direct result of the delay. The physician who examined the alleged victim at the time of the alleged offense is now deceased along with may other witnesses, including detectives who originally investigated the case.”

Wise also wrote that the “mere passage of time in this matter would substantively impair the reliability and recollection of any other witnesses who still may remain.”

He dismissed the remaining charge “with prejudice,” meaning the case cannot be brought back to court.