« Ind. Decisions - Tax Court issues opinion | Main | Environment - "Fish threat spurs call to reverse Chicago River again" »

Friday, August 19, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In George A. Feuston v. State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

George A. Feuston was arrested in Jay County and charged with theft. While out on bond, Feuston failed to appear for his pretrial conference, and he was later arrested in Delaware County on an unrelated charge. After he was incarcerated in Delaware County, no further action was taken in the Jay County case until Feuston, acting pro se, filed a “Motion Requesting Final Disposition of Charges/Detainers.” Appellant’s App. at 20. Thereafter, Feuston was appointed counsel, who filed a motion for discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). The trial court denied the motion and certified its order for interlocutory appeal. We accepted jurisdiction, and oral argument was held on June 27, 2011, in Indianapolis. Concluding that Feuston caused the delay in the Jay County case by absconding and failing to appear at his pretrial conference, we affirm. * * *

When a defendant absconds, the ensuing delay is caused by his act; therefore, we conclude that the Criminal Rule 4(C) clock does not resume until the trial court and prosecutor have actual knowledge of his whereabouts. To hold otherwise would reward a defendant who absconds in the hope that the court and prosecutor will lose track of his case. Feuston presented no evidence that the trial court and prosecutor knew where he was before he filed his motion on August 17, 2010; therefore, we conclude that he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to a discharge. Affirmed.

ROBB, C.J., concurs in result with separate opinion.
NAJAM, concurs.

[CJ Robb's concurring opinion begins] Although I agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in denying Feuston’s motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C), I respectfully concur only in the result because I believe the majority’s holding is too broad given the fact-sensitive nature of Rule 4(C) inquiries.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Crystal A. Ridgeway v. Kinser Group II, LLC, et al. (NFP)

Gary W. Moody v. City of Franklin (NFP)

S.W. v. E.W. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Zachary Wolfe v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Anthony Hollowell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Theodore Schwartz v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Donald Huesing v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 19, 2011 10:49 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions