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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.