COA affirms man’s speedy trial request not violated

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday affirmed the 25-year sentence handed down to a man whose erratic driving led police to pull his vehicle over and discover cocaine on the passenger. The judges found his right to a fast and speedy trial was not violated and the evidence supports that he jointly possessed the cocaine.

When police pulled over James Littrell’s minivan, they discovered Littrell’s passenger, Jackie Rumler, had a bag of cocaine in her shorts. Littrell denied that he purchased the drug but admitted to using it earlier in the day. A drug test found cocaine in his system.

He was charged with possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school as a Class B felony and other charges. He pleaded guilty to those charges, with the exception of the possession charge and being a habitual offender. He requested a speedy trial on those charges. The state sought an extension within the 90-day period because it was waiting on a blood test. The trial date was set for 112 days after the extension was granted and 152 days after Littrell’s original request.

He argued in James S. Littrell v. State of Indiana, 79A02-1401-CR-24, that the extension was calculated from the wrong starting date, but the appellate court said his right to a fast and speedy trial was not violated because the trial was set within the 90-day extension. The extension begins at the expiration of the original 70-day time period, the judges held, based on the Criminal Rule 4(D)’s use of the phrase “additional ninety (90) days.”

The judges also found his actions and statements lead to a reasonable inference he jointly possessed the cocaine. He admitted he had “shared the baggy” with Rumler, had handled it, and told her to put the baggy in her clothing.

“Littrell clearly had knowledge of the drugs’ location because he told the officers about the cocaine. Based on this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Littrell was in constructive possession of the cocaine,” Judge John Baker wrote.

The judges also found his aggregate 25-year sentence to be appropriate given his criminal history, threats made to the arresting officers, past drug use and failure to complete drug treatment programs.  

The COA remanded for correction of his guilty plea and sentencing orders because they show that Littrell pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while having a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance in the body as a felony, when in fact the offense is a misdemeanor.


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 is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.