Mamon v. State
| Decision Date | 17 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 30A05–1408–CR–372.,30A05–1408–CR–372. |
| Citation | 38 N.E.3d 226 (Table) |
| Parties | Kevin J. MAMON, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Nicole A. Zelin, Pritzke & Davis, LLP, Greenfield, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
ROBB
, Judge.
[1] Following a jury trial, Kevin Mamon was convicted of battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class D felony, and sentenced to three years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Mamon appeals his conviction, raising four issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred in denying his Criminal Rule 4(B)
motion for discharge; 2) whether he was denied his right to a speedy trial; 3) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury; and 4) whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
[2] We conclude the trial court did not err in denying Mamon's motion for discharge, and Mamon's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. We further conclude the trial court did not err in refusing Mamon's proposed jury instructions and that the State rebutted his claim of self-defense. We therefore affirm Mamon's conviction.
[3] On January 16, 2013, Mamon was sentenced in Hancock Superior Court 1 to six years in the DOC for resisting law enforcement and an habitual offender finding (“Cause 524”). At the time, he also had a charge pending in Marion County. On February 27, 2013, Mamon was found guilty by a jury in Hancock Circuit Court of battery by bodily waste (“Cause 1791”). Following the trial, he was held at the Hancock County Jail pending transfer back to Marion County on the same date. In preparation for the transfer, Sergeant Keith Oliver told Mamon to gather his personal belongings and jail-issued items. Sergeant Oliver escorted Mamon to the jail receiving room to be booked out. As part of the booking out process, an inmate's belongings are searched “to make sure there is nothing in there that he cannot have that might belong to the facility.” Transcript at 76. Sergeant Oliver found what he believed to be pages torn from the jail's law library books and set them aside as items that needed to remain at the facility. Mamon objected, stating that the papers were his own. He became verbally abusive to Sergeant Oliver and tried to move around him. Sergeant Oliver put his arm up to block Mamon and told him to have a seat. Mamon responded by telling Sergeant Oliver to “get your hands off me bitch,” State's Exhibit 3, raising his arm to push Sergeant Oliver's arm away from him, and then punching Sergeant Oliver in the mouth. Other officers in the area handcuffed Mamon, and he was placed in a restraint chair until he was transported out of the jail approximately an hour later. Sergeant Oliver suffered a cut to his lip and bruising to his mouth.
[4] As a result, on February 28, 2013, the State filed the current charge against Mamon in Hancock Circuit Court for battery, a Class D felony, and the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. On May 1, 2013, the State filed a request for the trial court to set an initial hearing for May 3 and order Mamon to appear. The request indicated that Mamon had contacted the prosecutor's office on April 26, 2013 and stated that he would appear in court on May 3 for an initial hearing should the court order him to do so, gave an address to which the order should be sent, and indicated he would also check the online Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”) for an order. The trial court issued an order setting an initial hearing for May 3 and ordering Mamon to appear. On May 3, 2013, the State appeared for the scheduled hearing but Mamon failed to appear.
[5] It appears that on May 28, 2013, Mamon was sentenced in Marion County to one year in the DOC for the charges that had been pending against him there. Mamon then appeared before the court in this case on June 3, 2013, at which time the trial court noted that he was in the custody of DOC. The trial court also noted that he was in court on two matters: he had not yet been sentenced in Cause 1791, and he had not yet had an initial hearing in the instant case.1 Mamon indicated he “asked for a fast and speedy trial on that-on that particular case.” Tr. at 6
. The trial court appointed counsel at Mamon's request and set a pre-trial conference and hearing on his motion for speedy trial for July 18, 2013–at which time he was also to be sentenced in Cause 1791. The trial court wished to hear legal arguments from counsel about the speedy trial request because although Mamon was in custody, Transcript at 8. The trial court did not, as it usually would, set a second pre-trial conference, trial status, or trial date pending the outcome of the hearing.
[6] The July 18, 2013 pre-trial conference and hearing was continued. The CCS indicates it was continued “by request” but does not indicate at whose request. Appellant's Appendix at 3. When the parties appeared on August 22, 2013 for the pre-trial conference, Mamon's counsel indicated it had been continued “because [Mamon] wasn't ... [n]obody knew where he was at.” Tr. at 15
.2 Counsel also indicated that Mamon wished to have him (or someone else) serve only as advisory counsel. Although counsel interjected occasionally during the hearing, Mamon largely spoke for himself. Mamon was sentenced in Cause 1791 and then requested that this case be dismissed pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court denied his motion to dismiss because Id. at 14. The trial court also denied Mamon's request to certify that decision for interlocutory appeal. The trial court then stated that it “authorizes you to be released on your own recognizance under this cause,” tr. at 17, and scheduled a jury trial for January 14, 2014.
[7] On August 23, 2013, Mamon filed a written Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Ind.Crim. Rule 4(B)(1)
. The trial court denied the motion on September 3, 2013, finding that Mamon “has been released on his own recognizance under this cause number and is currently serving time at the Department of Corrections [sic] on unrelated matters.” Appellant's App. at 24. Mamon then filed a request for writ of mandamus and prohibition with the Indiana Supreme Court seeking relief against the trial court for its failure to discharge him. On December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued the following order:
The key dispute between Mr. Mamon and the State has been whether he was held on this charge between June 3 and August 22, 2013, a period during which he was incarcerated and serving a sentence for a prior offense. The record of proceedings is unclear with regard to the disputed fact, so Mr. Mamon has not established that the trial court has a clear, absolute duty to dismiss the charge. Appeal is the normal avenue for challenging the rulings of a trial court. The appellate courts of Indiana routinely address speedy trial issues in appeals after a conviction and sentence, and Mr. Mamon does not demonstrate that any remedy by such an appeal would be wholly inadequate. Accordingly, the court denies the request for writ. To clarify, this denial is without prejudice to Mr. Mamon seeking review of his C.R. 4(B)(1) claim should he appeal in the future.
[8] The January 17, 2014 trial date was vacated due to the unavailability of the judge, and the cause reset for February 11, 2014. On January 8, 2014, Mamon filed a motion for certification of the trial court's September 3, 2013 order denying his written motion to dismiss and for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Apparently unaware of the December 20, 2013 order issued by the Indiana Supreme Court, the trial court granted the motion for stay of proceedings and vacated the February 11, 2014 trial date “pending a decision from the Supreme Court of Indiana” in Mamon's request for writ. Appellant's App. at 55. The trial court did not rule on the motion to certify its order for interlocutory appeal.
[9] It is unclear when the trial court became aware of the resolution of Mamon's request for writ, but in April of 2014, the trial court scheduled this case for jury trial on June 17, 2014 and again appointed counsel to represent Mamon. The day before trial, Mamon filed a notice of intent to raise defense of self or property and tendered proposed jury instructions regarding self-defense. The trial court declined to give the proposed jury instructions, explaining:
With regard to the issue of property I don't think the evidence supported granting the instruction because even assuming that it was Mr. Mamon's property ... the law doesn't justify the use of physical force under those circumstances.... And with regard to the issue of defending himself from physical attack, there is no evidence in the record that would support a reasonable person to conclude that it was necessary for Mr. Mamon to resort to physical violence to defend his person.
Tr. at 157–58. The jury found Mamon guilty of battery. He was sentenced to three years at the DOC. He now appeals his conviction.
[10] Mamon first alleges that the trial court erred in denying his Criminal Rule 4(B)
motion for discharge. “The broad goal of Indiana's Criminal Rule 4 is to provide functionality to a criminal defendant's fundamental and constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial.” Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial