ILNews

Justices vacate transfer to Criminal Rule 4(B) appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has decided that a Court of Appeals decision reversing the denial of man’s motion for discharge will stand.

The justices released an order Tuesday saying that the high court has vacated its grant of transfer to Corey Fletcher v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-1204-CR-208. They held oral arguments on the case June 1.

Corey Fletcher appealed the denial of his motion to discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). He was charged Oct. 28, 2009, with various drug offenses and scheduled to go to trial May 11, 2010. In early March 2011, Fletcher filed a pro se motion for a fast and speedy trial – the same day a new public defender was appointed. That attorney filed an appearance for three days after the pro se motion was filed.

The majority on the Court of Appeals disagreed with the holding in Jenkins v. State, 809 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to the extent that it implies that the appointment of counsel and not the appearance of counsel is the relevant time period for determining whether a defendant may file a pro se motion for a speedy trial. Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented, believing that since counsel had been appointed before Fletcher filed his early trial motion, the court wasn’t required to accept it for filing or grant it.

The Court of Appeals opinion, which previously had been vacated once the justices accepted transfer, has been reinstated as Court of Appeals precedent.

Justice Mark Massa dissented, believing Fletcher's rights weren't violated so his conviction should be affirmed.



 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT