JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review whether Phelan Terrell Guice's constitutional rights were violated when he was brought to trial at least 475 days after his arraignment - beyond the maximum allowed by Mississippi's speedy-trial law.

Guice, in asking for Supreme Court review, said two Mississippi courts had ignored the violation of his Sixth Amendment rights in upholding an aggravated-assault conviction and a 20-year sentence. The Supreme Court declined without comment to hear Guice's appeal.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by jury.

Guice was convicted in 2004 in Hinds County for shooting a Jackson homeowner in 2001. He was arrested on Sept. 14, 2001; indicted on April 9, 2002; arraigned on Oct. 30, 2002; and brought to trial on May 3, 2004. Guice was in jail the entire time.

Under Mississippi law, if a defendant is not tried within 270 days of his arraignment, he is entitled to a dismissal of the charges. Continuances, by either the defendant or the prosecution, can extend the time.

Prosecutors never provided any reason for the delay, according to the court record.

The Mississippi Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals said no speedy-trial violation occurred.

Guice had argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that when the right to a speedy trial was violated, the charges should be dismissed. He said both Mississippi courts sidestepped the constitutional issue to uphold his conviction.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in January that while there was a speedy-trial violation, Hinds County Circuit Judge Winston Kidd did not err by refusing to dismiss the indictment.

The Mississippi court, in a 6-3 decision, said Guice contributed to the delay by refusing to cooperate with his court-appointed attorney. The court said Guice never asked for a speedy trial but only asked that the charges be dismissed on the grounds of a violation of a speedy trial.

Since 1996, the Mississippi court said it had required a defendant to show some prejudice to his case from a failure to be tried within the 270-day period. The majority of the court said Guice provided no evidence of such prejudice.

A minority of the court said there was nothing in the speedy-trial law that required a defendant to show prejudice.