McCloud v. State - 9/26/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Friday  September 26, 2014 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 48A02-1312-CR-1056. Wayne High School, Fort Wayne. On Feb. 25, 2013, Officers Frazier and Boynton of the Anderson Police Department approached three men in a driveway to ask them if they knew of a man the police were searching for. The police believed that this man might be in the apartment complex across the street, an area known for its high drug activity. When the police approached the men, one of them, Marquise McCloud, recognized Officer Frazier and stated aloud, “Damn, Frazier.” Frazier also recognized McCloud as the man he had arrested three days earlier after McCloud had hidden marijuana and a handgun in the attic of a house. McCloud ducked behind a car in the driveway and began to attempt to pull something out of his coat pocket. Concerned that McCloud might be armed, Frazier drew his weapon and ordered McCloud to show his hands.  McCloud initially refused to comply, but eventually raised his hands.  Frazier performed a pat-down on McCloud and felt a large, hard object in McCloud’s front coat pocket, which he believed might be a knife. Upon emptying the contents of McCloud’s pockets, Frazier discovered a plastic bag containing cocaine.
The State charged McCloud with Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.  The trial court denied McCloud’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the pat-down search, and the jury found McCloud not guilty of dealing in cocaine but guilty of possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced McCloud to 40 years, with 33 years executed, two years on community corrections, and three years probation.
McCloud argues on appeal that: (1) the admission of the evidence seized during the pat-down search was fundamental error because Frazier did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that McCloud was armed; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing McCloud; and (3) that McCloud’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT