ILNews

Time spent in federal custody does not interfere with right to speedy trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A defendant’s repeated incarcerations in other jurisdictions did not interfere with his right to a speedy trial in Indiana.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Eddie Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge in Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1210-CR-534. It found Criminal Rule 4(C) did not apply because Spalding was not in the exclusive control of Indiana.

Spalding was arrested on March 7, 2011, and charged with Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. He subsequently missed several court appearances because he was being held in federal custody.

On June 18, 2012, Spalding filed a motion alleging that nearly 400 days had passed since his arrest and all of that delay was attributed to the state. After the trial court denied his motion, he argued in his appeal the time limit for trying him had passed.

The Court of Appeals noted the issue is a question of law which it reviewed de novo.

Spalding cited Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) which prohibits an individual from being held on a criminal charge for more than a year. The state countered that Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply because the time Spalding was in a foreign jurisdiction does not count in Indiana.

The COA noted Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 95 (Ind. 1998) provided that Criminal Rule 4(C) is applicable to defendants in foreign jurisdictions who are brought to Indiana under a writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum or other form of temporary custody. However, in Spalding’s case, Indiana did not have exclusive control so the “Sweeney exception” was not triggered.
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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT