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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT