ILNews

Justices affirm 1989 murder convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld four murder convictions against a Lakeville man who as a teenager killed his family 20 years ago.

In doing so, justices have determined that a defendant's speedy trial right doesn't include the time for an interlocutory appeal when trial proceedings have been stayed.

Justices issued a unanimous 18-page opinion today in Robert Jeffrey Pelley v. State of Indiana, No. 71S05-0808-CR-446, which affirmed the rulings from St. Joseph Superior Judge Roland Chamblee about two years ago. Aside from the speedy-trial delay issue, justices found evidence sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial judge didn't err in any other aspect.

A jury in 2007 found Pelley guilty of the 1989 murders of his father, stepmother, and two stepsisters. The state presented evidence to support its theory that Pelley, who'd been grounded and not able to attend his senior prom, killed them in order to attend the school event with his girlfriend. He received consecutive 40-year terms totaling 160 years.

Prosecutors hadn't filed charges in the early 1990s, but a new prosecutor did after opening the cold case more than a decade later. When filing charges in 2002, the prosecutor filed an interlocutory appeal based on a third-party discovery dispute that stopped records from being released to the state for use at trial. The appellate court issued a stay but held onto the appeal for two years, despite a rule that puts interlocutory appeals on an expedited review schedule - pushing the state close to its deadline of taking the case to trial within a year as is mandated by Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) on speedy trials, unless a defendant somehow caused the delay, or if an "emergency" or "court congestion" occurred.

The case finally went to trial in July 2006, and a jury convicted him the following year. In April 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and held the state's interlocutory appeal was chargeable to the state for purposes of the speedy trial rule and Pelley should be discharged. The appellate panel held the speedy trial rule contained no exception for interlocutory appeals and that Pelley wasn't responsible for the delay caused by prosecutors and the appellate process.

The Attorney General's Office asked justices to reinstate the convictions, and the justices heard arguments in August 2008. During arguments, justices mulled who should be penalized in this case and wondered whether to establish a blanket rule for interlocutory appeals relating to Criminal Rule 4, or whether this case involves details that could be classified as an "emergency" or "congestion."

In analyzing the case, the court relied on Martin v. State, 245 Ind. 224, 228, 194 N.E. 2d 721, 723 (1963), which held neither the prosecutor nor trial judge could control the time required for appeal and most appeals would trigger a dismissal - something the legislature couldn't have intended.

"When trial court proceedings have been stayed pending resolution of the State's interlocutory appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction to try the defendant and has no ability to speed the appellate process," Justice Theodore Boehm wrote. "As a practical matter, applying the Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year requirement to interlocutory appeals would render an appeal by the State impossible because it would in all likelihood trigger a mandatory discharge of the defendant."

However, Justice Boehm added some advice for the state to consider in these types of cases in the future. He wrote, "Although Appellate Rule 21(A) provides generally for expedited consideration of interlocutory appeals, in the future the State should alert the appellate court when it pursues an interlocutory appeal not chargeable to the defendant so the appellate court can be sensitive to the defendant's interest in avoiding delay."

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT