ILNews

Man has second chance to get OWI charges dropped

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Jefferson County man who was brought to court for operating a vehicle while intoxicated more than two years after he was pulled over by police will get another chance to argue that his right to a speedy trial was violated.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has remanded to the trial court for a new hearing on a motion to dismiss in Michael E. McClellan v. State of Indiana, 39A04-1305-CR-248.
 
McClellan filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court dismissed his motion to dismiss the charges against him. He had been arrested for drunken driving in February 2009. Seven months later in August, McClellan was pulled over for suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Because his health prevented him from taking a breath test, McClellan consented to a blood draw.

On Dec. 23, 2009, McClellan pleaded guilty to the February operating while intoxicated charge and was sentenced to one year of home detention. On May 25, 2010, two days after it had received the toxicology report from the August arrest, the state charged McClellan with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor.

The court issued a summons to McClellan to his Milton, Ky., address even though he was serving his home detention in Hanover, Ind. When the summons was returned as undeliverable and McClellan did not appear for the initial hearing, the court issued an arrest warrant. McClellan was eventually served with the warrant in November 2012. A month later he filed a motion to dismiss, alleging his due process rights had been violated.

The Indiana Court of Appeals turned to the four-part test established by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 to determine whether there was a speedy trial violation. On the fourth factor – prejudice to the defendant – the Court of Appeals found the state had not had the opportunity to rebut the presumption of prejudice in this case.

Judge Margret Robb wrote for the court that if the state is able to rebut the presumption of prejudice, this factor may then weigh against McClellan in the analysis. Consequently, the Court of Appeals remanded for a new hearing.


 
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT