884 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 2008), 79A02-0707-CR-574, Bowman v. State

Docket Nº79A02-0707-CR-574.
Citation884 N.E.2d 917
Party NameCory L. BOWMAN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Case DateApril 23, 2008
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 917

884 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 2008)

Cory L. BOWMAN, Appellant-Defendant,

v.

STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 79A02-0707-CR-574.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 23, 2008

Rehearing Denied July 2, 2008.

Page 918

Jon A. Keyes , Allen Wellman McNew, Greenfield, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter , Attorney General of Indiana, Joseph Robert Delamater, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

MAY, Judge.

Cory L. Bowman appeals the denial of his motion for discharge and dismissal. He alleges his prosecution was barred by Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) , the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. We affirm.

Page 919

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 22, 2002, Officer Matthew Rosenbarger observed Bowman driving erratically. After administering field and chemical tests, Officer Rosenbarger determined Bowman was intoxicated and arrested him. Bowman gave Officer Rosenbarger the address in West Lafayette where he resided at that time. Bowman spent the night in jail and was summoned to appear in court on April 15, 2002 at 8:00 a.m.

Bowman appeared in court as ordered and was told no charges had been filed against him. On or about April 22, 2002, Bowman called the court and was again told no charges had been filed against him. He made no further inquiries. In August of 2002, Bowman moved to Perrysville. He did not leave a forwarding address or update his address with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

On September 20, 2002, the State filed an information alleging Bowman had operated a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor,1 and operated a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 gram per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath, a Class C misdemeanor.2 The trial court set an initial hearing for October 21, 2002. Notice was sent to the West Lafayette address and was returned marked “address unknown." (Appellant's App. at 4, 107.) Bowman received no notice of the charges. He did not appear at the hearing, and the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.

In January of 2007, Bowman was stopped for speeding in Illinois and was detained on the outstanding warrant. On February 15, 2007, Bowman entered a plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial. On March 28, 2007, Bowman moved for discharge and dismissal.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

1. Criminal Rule 4(C)

Bowman argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion for discharge under Crim. R. 4(C). We review a ruling on a Crim. R. 4(C) motion for abuse of discretion. Werner v. State, 818 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) , trans. denied 831 N.E.2d 735 (Ind.2005) . An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Crim. R. 4(C) provides in relevant part:

No person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • 77 N.E.3d 237 (Ind.App. 2017), 46A04-1607-CR-1522, State v. Larkin
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 2017
    ...trial date. We disagree. [¶15] The State bears the burden of bringing the defendant to trial within one year. Bowman v State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008), trans. denied. Rule 4(C) provides a defendant may not be held to answer a criminal charge for greate......
  • 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
    ...1133 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). The State contends that we review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, citing Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. " Whether delays in the scheduling of the trial have occurred and to whom they are chargeable a......
  • 6 N.E.3d 1001 (Ind.App. 2014), 39A04-1305-CR-248, McClellan v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 1, 2014
    ...and then moves; 6 only a reasonable effort is required for the delay not to be attributable to the State. See Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (" When the State has made reasonable efforts to locate an arrestee, it cannot be found at fault for delay caused b......
  • Riddle v. State, 121620 INCA, 20A-CR-24
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 16, 2020
    ...Id. "The State bears the burden of bringing the defendant to trial within one year." Id. (citing Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008), trans. denied). "Rule 4(C) provides a defendant may not be held to answer a criminal charge for g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind.App. 2008), 79A05-0712-CR-687, Rich v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 16, 2008
    ...as part of a condition of probation, the court is required to inquire into the defendant's ability to pay" ); Lohmiller, 884 N.E.2d at 917 (concluding the trial court committed fundamental error by awarding restitution to a County where the State failed to argue that the County was a “......
  • 77 N.E.3d 237 (Ind.App. 2017), 46A04-1607-CR-1522, State v. Larkin
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 2017
    ...trial date. We disagree. [¶15] The State bears the burden of bringing the defendant to trial within one year. Bowman v State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008), trans. denied. Rule 4(C) provides a defendant may not be held to answer a criminal charge for greate......
  • 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
    ...1133 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). The State contends that we review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, citing Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 919 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. " Whether delays in the scheduling of the trial have occurred and to whom they are chargeable a......
  • 6 N.E.3d 1001 (Ind.App. 2014), 39A04-1305-CR-248, McClellan v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 1, 2014
    ...and then moves; 6 only a reasonable effort is required for the delay not to be attributable to the State. See Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (" When the State has made reasonable efforts to locate an arrestee, it cannot be found at fault for delay caused b......
  • 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