Thursday, May 31, 2012
Ind. Decisions - One today from Supreme Court
In Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana, an 8-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice David writes:
In this case, the State filed charges against the defendant, and after a brief period of incarceration, the defendant was released. Shortly after his release, the defendant was again incarcerated but on a probation-revocation case. While he was incarcerated on the probation-revocation case, the defendant filed a Criminal Rule 4(B) motion, requesting a speedy trial on the pending charges.
The trial court denied the motion. We affirm, holding that Criminal Rule 4(B) is available to a defendant only when the defendant is held on the pending charges for which he requests a speedy trial. * * *
Our analysis begins with this Court’s decision in Poore v. State, 685 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. 1997). * * *
Ultimately, the most reasonable interpretation of Poore’s language on Criminal Rule 4(B)’s availability—“incarceration due to the pending charge at issue need not be the only reason the defendant is in jail”—is the following: for Rule 4(B) to apply, the defendant must be incarcerated on the charge for which he seeks a speedy trial, and as long as that requirement is met, the availability of Rule 4(B) is not affected if the defendant is also incarcerated on other grounds. 658 N.E.2d at 40. Accordingly, Criminal Rule 4(B) was not available to Cundiff on the pending charges for which he sought a speedy trial because he was not incarcerated on those charges.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 31, 2012 02:20 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions