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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT