ILNews

Federal incarceration doesn't count toward speedy trial clock

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a Marion Superior judge’s decision not to dismiss charges against a man who alleged his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because the state didn’t bring his case to trial within a year, as required by Rule 4(C) of the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In Lance McCloud v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1102-CR-77, the appellate court looked at the case of a man arrested Oct. 15, 2009, and charged the following day with four misdemeanor offenses. Lance McCloud requested an early trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4 and obtained a bond release from jail. The state obtained a continuance when the parties appeared for trial Nov. 30, 2009.

McCloud failed to appear at the rescheduled trial date on Feb. 9, 2010, and an arrest warrant was issued. It was discovered that McCloud had been on federal probation for a handgun offense at the time he was arrested in Indiana on the misdemeanors, and that probation violation led to his federal incarceration until September or early October 2010.

Despite his 10-month federal imprisonment and the delays that caused at the Indiana trial level, McCloud’s counsel argued the state was required to bring him to trial on the misdemeanors before Oct. 15, 2010.  The trial court agreed with the state’s contention that the federal prison delays should not count against the state and that the trial date could be extended, and the trial court denied McCloud’s motion to dismiss the charges before the Jan. 7, 2011, trial began. This interlocutory appeal ensued.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with McCloud’s claim that he was back in Indiana before the one-year deadline and should have been tried in the week prior to that date. The fact that he was back in Indiana before the date didn’t impact his 10-month absence, which was a delay he specifically caused. The appellate panel also found that the state wasn’t adequately notified about McCloud’s whereabouts by receiving a surety release petition in early 2010, and that didn’t restart the Rule 4 clock.

In using a four-prong test examining the length and reason for the delay, the appellate court found that on balance McCloud’s right to a speedy trial wasn’t violated because he caused the federal incarceration that delayed his Indiana misdemeanor proceedings.

 

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