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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT