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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT