ILNews

COA upholds cocaine convictions, sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s arguments to overturn his two convictions of Class A felony possession of cocaine, including that he should have been granted a speedy trial and the trial court erred when it rejected his tendered jury instruction.

Patrick Austin was pulled over by Trooper Joseph White because the officer thought the trailer Austin’s semi-tractor was pulling would normally be pulled by a pickup truck. Austin’s logbooks and shipping papers made the trooper suspicious, but he allowed Austin to go free. White then contacted state police, which sent Trooper Mick Dockery to wait for Austin’s vehicle to drive by on the toll road. Dockery stopped Austin’s semi-tractor for two traffic violations. After a drug sniffing dog indicated it smelled illegal drugs in the trailer, police obtained a search warrant and found bricks of cocaine in the Mercedes and Rolls-Royce cars inside the trailer.

Austin filed for a speedy trial, but the state moved to continue his scheduled trial due to court congestion. After his trial was rescheduled beyond the 70-day period during which the state was required to try him after his request, Austin filed a motion for discharge. The trial court denied it. He was convicted of the two drug counts and sentenced to 40 years on each count, to be served concurrently.

On appeal, Austin argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for discharge under Criminal Rule 4; the trial court abused its discretion by admitting contested evidence; the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting his tendered jury instruction regarding constructive possession; and the sentence assigned by the trial court was both an abuse of discretion and inappropriate based on Austin’s character and offenses.

The trial court did not err in denying his motion for discharge because his trial was moved to accommodate another incarcerated criminal defendant whose case was older than Austin’s. The judges also rejected his claim that his trial could have happened if the state moved a civil trial scheduled for the last day in his 70-day period.

The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s determination that the stop and search of Austin the second time was reasonable and affirmed admitting evidence that Austin had control over the Rolls-Royce on several occasions before he was arrested. It also found no abuse of discretion by the trial court regarding the jury instructions.

“As the trial court’s instruction could not have permitted the jury to find the ‘mere presence’ of drugs was enough to show Austin’s constructive possession, the jury was not, as Austin asserts, ‘left to speculate that his control over the Rolls-Royce and Mercedes Benz made him guilty,’” Judge Melissa May wrote in Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana, 20A03-1112-CR-588.

The judges also found his sentence to be appropriate based on his prior felony arrests and was caught transporting more than $4 million worth of cocaine.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT