495 N.E.2d 539 (Ind.App. 2 Dist. 1986), 2-1285-A-380, State v. Smith

Docket Nº2-1285-A-380.
Citation495 N.E.2d 539
Party NameSTATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Michael SMITH, Appellee (Defendant).
Case DateJuly 21, 1986
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 539

495 N.E.2d 539 (Ind.App. 2 Dist. 1986)

STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

Michael SMITH, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 2-1285-A-380.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District.

July 21, 1986

Page 540

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, John H. Meyers, Pros. Atty., Twenty-third Judicial Circuit, Lafayette, for appellant.

George G. Wilder, Public Defender, Tippecanoe County, Lafayette, for appellee.

BUCHANAN, Chief Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

Plaintiff-appellant the State appeals the trial court's dismissal of charges against defendant-appellee Michael Smith (Smith) pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 4(C), claiming the trial court erred.

We affirm.

FACTS

The facts reveal that Smith was charged with two counts of child molesting on March 14, 1984. Smith was arrested in Tippecanoe County and appeared for an initial hearing in the Tippecanoe County Court in cause TCMT-2-1731-84 on March 16, 1984. Certified docket entries from this proceeding indicate that on April 23, 1984, Smith pled not guilty, and his trial was scheduled for July 31, 1984. The next docket entry indicates that on June 29, 1984, the trial was rescheduled for September 25, 1984, but the record reveals no reason for the delay. Finally, the docket reveals no further action in this cause until March 12, 1985, when the State dismissed the charges against Smith. Prior to the dismissal, however, on January 24, 1985, the State initiated cause number S-5206 against Smith in the Tippecanoe Superior Court by filing child molesting charges that were identical to the charges then pending in cause TCMT-2-1731-84. The parties attended an initial hearing in cause S-5206 on February 11, 1985 at which the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for Smith and set an omnibus date. Thereafter, on March 29, 1985, Smith filed a motion to dismiss requesting discharge because the State had failed to bring him to trial by March 16, 1985, i.e., within one year of the initial charge as required by C.R. 4(C). The State opposed Smith's motion on the grounds that it had been engaged in plea negotiations with Smith's attorney and had failed to schedule Smith's case for trial because it was waiting on a response from Smith to the State's plea bargain offer. This evidence was presented in the form of an affidavit by John Meyers, the prosecuting attorney. Following a hearing on the motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • 815 P.2d 642 (N.M.App. 1991), 12,527, State v. Lujan
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 28, 1991
    ...automatically adopt a per se rule attributing delay resulting from attempted plea negotiations to a specific party. See State v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 539, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); People v. Butcher, 46 Mich.App. 40, 44, 207 N.W.2d 430, 433 (1973); Reed v. State, 506 So.2d 277 (Miss.1987). In the......
  • 597 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1992), 82A01-9202-CR-28, Crosby v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 19, 1992
    ...First, the assessment of cause for delay is a factual determination to be made by the trial court. State v. Smith (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 539, 542. The trial court made a factual finding that the reason Page 989 the delay was the State's negligence in complying with discovery and its l......
  • 909 N.E.2d 515 (Ind.App. 2009), 49A04-0810-CR-628, Payton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 30, 2009
    ...nor is he required to take any affirmative action to see that he is brought to trial within the statutory time period. State v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 539, 541 As an initial matter, we observe that the parties do not agree on the standard of review. Payton asserts our review is de novo, citing B......
  • 545 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind.App. 3 Dist. 1989), 29A02-8903-CR-82, Butts v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 1989
    ...He cites four cases to support his argument, but none have fact situations analogous to this case. In State v. Smith (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 539 and State ex rel. Back v. Starke Cir. Ct. (1979), 271 Ind. 82, 390 N.E.2d 643, the original charges filed against the defendants were dismiss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • 815 P.2d 642 (N.M.App. 1991), 12,527, State v. Lujan
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 28, 1991
    ...automatically adopt a per se rule attributing delay resulting from attempted plea negotiations to a specific party. See State v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 539, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); People v. Butcher, 46 Mich.App. 40, 44, 207 N.W.2d 430, 433 (1973); Reed v. State, 506 So.2d 277 (Miss.1987). In the......
  • 597 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1992), 82A01-9202-CR-28, Crosby v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 19, 1992
    ...First, the assessment of cause for delay is a factual determination to be made by the trial court. State v. Smith (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 539, 542. The trial court made a factual finding that the reason Page 989 the delay was the State's negligence in complying with discovery and its l......
  • 909 N.E.2d 515 (Ind.App. 2009), 49A04-0810-CR-628, Payton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 30, 2009
    ...nor is he required to take any affirmative action to see that he is brought to trial within the statutory time period. State v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 539, 541 As an initial matter, we observe that the parties do not agree on the standard of review. Payton asserts our review is de novo, citing B......
  • 808 N.E.2d 718 (Ind.App. 2004), 18A02-0310-CR-913, Pond v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 20, 2004
    ..."outright dismissal" of the charges against Pond. Appellant's Appendix at 133. We find these facts more akin to State v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 539 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). There, Smith was charged in Tippecanoe County Court on March 14, 1984. Eventually, the State dismissed the charges; how......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT