Bowers v. State, 49A05-9905-CR-219.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A05-9905-CR-219.,49A05-9905-CR-219. |
| Citation | 717 N.E.2d 242 |
| Parties | Eugene BOWERS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Janice L. Stevens, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Sarah E. Scherrer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Eugene Bowers appeals the denial of his motions for discharge pursuant to Ind. Crim. Rule 4(B).
We affirm.
On September 23, 1998, the State charged Bowers with robbery and criminal confinement, both class B felonies. The trial court held an initial hearing on September 24, 1998, wherein Bowers requested a speedy trial pursuant to Crim. R. 4(B). The trial court granted his request. At an October 20, 1998, pre-trial hearing, the court scheduled Bowers' trial for November 16, 1998. On November 13, 1998, the court, on its own motion, continued Bowers' trial due to court congestion. The court reset the trial for December 28, 1998.
On December 23, 1998, the court, on its own motion, continued Bowers' trial due to court congestion. Specifically, the court explained that there was court congestion as the result of Joseph Williams' jury trial. The court reset Bowers' trial for February 8, 1999. On December 29, 1998, Bowers filed a motion for discharge pursuant to Crim. R. 4(B) wherein he challenged the trial court's finding of congestion and argued that his trial, not Williams', should have been the first choice setting on December 28, 1998. The trial court denied his motion.
On February 8, 1999, Bowers' scheduled trial date, the State dismissed the charges against Bowers because a witness failed to appear. Bowers, who had been incarcerated since September 23, 1998, was released from custody. The State re-filed the charges against Bowers on February 23, 1999, and he was taken into custody and re-incarcerated on April 6, 1999. At an April 7, 1999, initial hearing, Bowers made an oral motion for discharge pursuant to Crim. R. 4(B). The trial court denied the motion and scheduled Bowers' trial for April 26, 1999. On April 13, 1999, Bowers filed a petition with the trial court to take an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion for discharge.
Bowers now contends that the trial court erred in denying both 1) his December 29, 1998, motion for discharge; and 2) his April 7, 1999, motion for discharge. We disagree.
The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548, 551 (Ind.1995). The provisions of Ind.Crim. Rule 4 implement the defendant's speedy trial right. Id. Specifically, Crim. R. 4(B) provides in pertinent part as follows:
If any defendant held in jail on an indictment or an affidavit shall move for an early trial, he shall be discharged if not brought to trial within seventy (70) calendar days from the date of such motion, except where a continuance within said period is had on his motion, or the delay is otherwise caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such seventy (70) calendar days because of congestion of the court calendar.
(Emphasis added).
While the rule expressly requires that a defendant be discharged if not brought to trial within certain prescribed time limits, the rule and subsequent interpretations have recognized that court congestion and other exigent circumstances may justify a reasonable delay beyond the seventy-day period. Clark at 551. In order to assure that the rule functions as intended with respect to the right to a speedy trial, a defendant must be granted a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate violations of the rule and to obtain the relief provided therein. Id.
Here, Bowers first challenges the trial court's denial of his December 29, 1998, motion for discharge wherein he challenged the court's finding of congestion and argued that his trial, not Williams', should have been the first choice setting on December 28, 1998.
A defendant may challenge a trial court's finding of congestion by demonstrating that, at the time that the trial court made its decision to postpone the trial, the finding of congestion was factually or legally inaccurate. Clark at 552. When we review the case, the trial court's explanation will be presumed valid and accorded reasonable deference. Id. The defendant must establish his entitlement to relief by showing that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Id.
Our review of the record in this case reveals the following relevant dates as to Bowers and Williams:
December 23, 1998 Trial court holds Williams' pre-trial hearing wherein Williams indicates that he is ready for trial as scheduled on December 28. Trial court, on its own motion, continues Bowers' trial due to court congestion as the result of Williams' trial.
Bowers argues that because he filed his request for a speedy trial before Williams filed his request, Bowers' trial should have been the first choice setting on December 28, 1998. Therefore, according to Bowers the trial court's finding of congestion as the result of Williams' trial was inaccurate, and its decision to postpone Bowers' trial was clearly erroneous. We disagree.
On October 28, 1998, when the trial court scheduled Williams' jury trial for December 28, 1998, the court had no way of knowing that Bowers' jury trial date would be taken off of the calendar on November 13 and reset for December 28 as well. Bowers has failed to direct us to any authority—nor or we aware of any— that would require a trial court to assess and determine each defendant's arrest and speedy trial request dates and adjust its calendar to make sure that when a defendant's speedy trial is continued,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UPSHAW v. State of Ind.
...ticking merely because Upshaw was arrested on new, separate charges-that would not serve the Rule's objectives. Cf. Bowers v. State, 717 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (finding that Rule 4(B) clock resumed when defendant, who had been discharged on his own recognizance, was later recharg......
-
Upshaw v. State Of Ind.
...ticking merely because Upshaw was arrested on new, separate charges—that would not serve the Rule's objectives. Cf Bowers v. State, 717 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (finding that Rule 4(B) clock resumed when defendant, who had been discharged on his own recognizance, was later recha......
-
Wilkins v. State
...extenuating circumstances" that will justify a finding of court congestion or exigent circumstances. Id. Relying on Bowers v. State, 717 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), Wilkins contends that Kyles's earlier request for a speedy trial was insufficient to confer priority status.4 Wilkins's......