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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT