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.



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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.