ILNews

Federal incarceration doesn't count toward speedy trial clock

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a Marion Superior judge’s decision not to dismiss charges against a man who alleged his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because the state didn’t bring his case to trial within a year, as required by Rule 4(C) of the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In Lance McCloud v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1102-CR-77, the appellate court looked at the case of a man arrested Oct. 15, 2009, and charged the following day with four misdemeanor offenses. Lance McCloud requested an early trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4 and obtained a bond release from jail. The state obtained a continuance when the parties appeared for trial Nov. 30, 2009.

McCloud failed to appear at the rescheduled trial date on Feb. 9, 2010, and an arrest warrant was issued. It was discovered that McCloud had been on federal probation for a handgun offense at the time he was arrested in Indiana on the misdemeanors, and that probation violation led to his federal incarceration until September or early October 2010.

Despite his 10-month federal imprisonment and the delays that caused at the Indiana trial level, McCloud’s counsel argued the state was required to bring him to trial on the misdemeanors before Oct. 15, 2010.  The trial court agreed with the state’s contention that the federal prison delays should not count against the state and that the trial date could be extended, and the trial court denied McCloud’s motion to dismiss the charges before the Jan. 7, 2011, trial began. This interlocutory appeal ensued.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with McCloud’s claim that he was back in Indiana before the one-year deadline and should have been tried in the week prior to that date. The fact that he was back in Indiana before the date didn’t impact his 10-month absence, which was a delay he specifically caused. The appellate panel also found that the state wasn’t adequately notified about McCloud’s whereabouts by receiving a surety release petition in early 2010, and that didn’t restart the Rule 4 clock.

In using a four-prong test examining the length and reason for the delay, the appellate court found that on balance McCloud’s right to a speedy trial wasn’t violated because he caused the federal incarceration that delayed his Indiana misdemeanor proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT