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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT