ILNews

Court affirms delay in jury trial for congestion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant's arguments that because his request for a speedy trial was in writing, his trial should take priority over another man's trial scheduled for the same day.

In Daniel E. Wilkins v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0804-CR-190, the appellate court affirmed Daniel Wilkins' convictions of robbery, criminal confinement, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The Court of Appeals ruled the trial court didn't violate his right to a speedy trial when it delayed Wilkins' jury trial on a finding of court congestion.

Wilkins' request for a speedy trial was granted and his trial was scheduled for Nov. 7, 2007. At a pretrial conference, the court discovered a scheduling conflict with the defense counsel and prosecutors because the trial of Leon Kyles was scheduled the same day and they were to appear in that trial, too.

On Nov. 7, the trial court continued Wilkins' trial due to court congestion when it discovered that Kyles had asked for an early trial one day before Wilkins. With no objection, Wilkins' trial was rescheduled and he was convicted in February 2008.

Since Wilkins didn't raise an objection, he waived his claim on appeal. However, his appeal would also fail because he didn't show the court erred in delaying his trial due to court congestion. Wilkins argued that his request should have taken priority because his and Kyles' requests were made "virtually at the same time" and he made his request in writing whereas Kyles made a verbal request.

The Court of Appeals rejected his argument because Ind. Criminal Rule 4(B) makes no requirement that requests be made in writing and the motions were not filed at the same time. The appellate court also found Wilkins' reliance on Bowers v. State, 717 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), to be misplaced.

The issue of whether appellate delays constitute court congestion or an emergency as it relates to a defendant's speedy trial rights is currently pending before the Indiana Supreme Court. The high court granted transfer in August 2008 to Robert J. Pelley v. State, No. 71A05-0612-CR-726, in which the Court of Appeals reversed Pelley's four murder convictions and held the state's interlocutory appeal was chargeable to the state for purposes of the speedy trial rule, thus making Pelley entitled to a discharge.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT