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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT