ILNews

Man extradited from Wyoming on many charges not denied speedy trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who twice escaped incarceration in Indiana and was extradited to face a multitude of charges after he was convicted in Wyoming failed to convince appellate judges he had been denied a speedy trial.

Anderson native Kelvin Fuller was convicted in 2008 of bank robbery and in 2009 of aggravated assault in Wyoming. Afterward, he was shipped back to Indiana to face a multitude of felony charges in Hamilton, Lake, LaPorte and Madison counties alleging a criminal rampage.

Lake County officials had issued warrants for Fuller while he was at large, charging him with felonies including robbery, confinement, strangulation and intimidation, and prosecutors in January 2009 sought extradition on those charges when they learned he was being held in the Equality State.

Fuller was extradited in May 2009 and read the Lake County warrant the next month by a Hamilton County officer as the charges against him from other jurisdictions were prosecuted first. Fuller in June 2012 filed a motion to dismiss the Lake County charges pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C), which Lake Superior Judge Salvador Vasquez denied.

On interlocutory appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed Vasquez and found Fuller had not proven his right to trial within one year had been violated, noting Fuller could not show Lake officials knew of his incarceration in Indiana before he made them aware.

Despite being read the information from Lake County by an officer from the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, “this fact does not reflect on the knowledge of the Lake County prosecutor or trial court,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the court in Kelvin Fuller v. State of Indiana, 45A03-1212-CR-520.

“It is Fuller’s burden on appeal to give us a record that supports his claims. … At best, Fuller presented us with some evidence suggesting that Lake County sheriff’s department might have been aware of Fuller’s incarceration in Indiana,” Riley wrote.

“However, because the record does not show that the Lake County prosecutor or trial court were actually aware of Fuller’s return to Indiana’s jurisdiction prior to Fuller’s filing of his motion to discharge on June 13, 2012, the Crim. R. 4 (C) clock did not start until that date. Therefore, the trial court properly denied Fuller’s motion.”
 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT