After a jury convicted him of child molestation and two child-enticing offenses involving indecent purposes, Clyde Priest argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal based on a speedy-trial violation and that the evidence was insufficient. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial without addressing whether the delay caused actual prejudice to his defense, the final speedy-trial factor Priest relied on. Because that issue bears on whether a speedy-trial motion would have succeeded and whether counsel was ineffective for not filing it, the Court of Appeals vacated the denial and remanded for the trial court to address actual prejudice and then reconsider the ineffective-assistance claim. The appellate court did not reach Priest’s sufficiency challenge to the Count 3 enticement conviction while the new-trial ruling remained unresolved. The denial of the motion for new trial was vacated, and the case was remanded; the sufficiency issue was not decided.