ILNews

Committed defendant can be charged

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a pre-trial motion to dismiss a pending felony criminal recklessness charge against a defendant, ruling the length of time incompetent defendants are committed to a mental health institution does not allow for dismissal of charges.

In State of Indiana v. Charlene Davis, 49A02-0706-CR-545, the state argued the trial court did not have the legal authority to dismiss a Class D felony criminal recklessness charge against Davis. Davis was found to be incompetent to stand trial in May 2004 and was ordered to be committed to a Department of Mental Health psychiatric institution. Pursuant to Indiana Code 35-36-3-3(a), the superintendent of the state institution where the defendant is placed is required to certify to the trial court whether there is a substantial probability the defendant will become competent within the foreseeable future. The superintendent where Davis was placed wrote to the trial court Davis had not attained competency to stand trial and filed a petition for Davis' civil involuntary commitment. She was committed in September 2004 in Evansville.

In August 2005, Davis was evaluated again for competency to stand trial and still lacked competency. She was later transferred to Larue Carter Memorial Hospital; in March 2007, the chief medical officer at Larue Carter wrote to the trial court that in her opinion, Davis could not be restored to competency. As a result, Davis' counsel filed a motion to dismiss the felony charge because she had been involuntarily committed for longer than the maximum sentence for the charged crime. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote the Indiana statutes for commitment during a criminal proceeding do not mention any procedure regarding pending criminal charges once a defendant is committed based on statute. The state argued this lack of statutory instruction does not allow the trial court to dismiss the charges over the state's objection.

Davis' counsel cited Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 717 (1972) in allowing the trial court to dismiss the charge. The U.S. Supreme Court held in the case a defendant charged by a state with a criminal offense who is committed solely because of incapacity to proceed with the trial can't be held for more than "the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future."

Davis' attorneys argued allowing charges to remain pending against a defendant who has been found incompetent violates due process, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not address that issue in Jackson, wrote Judge Bailey. Davis' charge was not dismissed because of due process; it was dismissed because she had been committed for longer than the maximum sentence for the crime.

The court found no authority for equating time in civil involuntary commitment to credit for time served for pending criminal charges.
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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT