ILNews

Man has second chance to get OWI charges dropped

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Jefferson County man who was brought to court for operating a vehicle while intoxicated more than two years after he was pulled over by police will get another chance to argue that his right to a speedy trial was violated.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has remanded to the trial court for a new hearing on a motion to dismiss in Michael E. McClellan v. State of Indiana, 39A04-1305-CR-248.
 
McClellan filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court dismissed his motion to dismiss the charges against him. He had been arrested for drunken driving in February 2009. Seven months later in August, McClellan was pulled over for suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Because his health prevented him from taking a breath test, McClellan consented to a blood draw.

On Dec. 23, 2009, McClellan pleaded guilty to the February operating while intoxicated charge and was sentenced to one year of home detention. On May 25, 2010, two days after it had received the toxicology report from the August arrest, the state charged McClellan with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor.

The court issued a summons to McClellan to his Milton, Ky., address even though he was serving his home detention in Hanover, Ind. When the summons was returned as undeliverable and McClellan did not appear for the initial hearing, the court issued an arrest warrant. McClellan was eventually served with the warrant in November 2012. A month later he filed a motion to dismiss, alleging his due process rights had been violated.

The Indiana Court of Appeals turned to the four-part test established by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 to determine whether there was a speedy trial violation. On the fourth factor – prejudice to the defendant – the Court of Appeals found the state had not had the opportunity to rebut the presumption of prejudice in this case.

Judge Margret Robb wrote for the court that if the state is able to rebut the presumption of prejudice, this factor may then weigh against McClellan in the analysis. Consequently, the Court of Appeals remanded for a new hearing.


 
 

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT