Gee v. State, No. 49S00-8708-CR-794
| Docket Nº | No. 49S00-8708-CR-794 |
| Citation | 526 N.E.2d 1152 |
| Case Date | August 12, 1988 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1152
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
Nancy L. Broyles, McClure, McClure & Kammen, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Defendant-Appellant Lewis R. Gee waived trial by jury and trial to the court resulted in his conviction for Burglary, for which he received a term of twenty (20) years, and Theft, for which he received a term of two (2) years, said terms to be served concurrently. Further, the trial judge found he was not an habitual criminal.
Two issues are presented for our review in this direct appeal:
1. trial court error in overruling Gee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Indiana R.Crim.P. 4(B)(1); and
2. sufficiency of the evidence.
Evidence shows the victims, Victor and Suzanne Danielson, returned to their home at 11:00 a.m., and found a red pickup truck in their drive and Gee, with another subject, inside their home. Some of the victims' property was in the bed of the truck. Danielson placed his car behind the truck so it could not leave the scene. The police arrived and arrested Gee and his accomplice.
Gee claims the trial court erred in allowing him to be tried ninety-three (93) days after the filing of his Motion for Speedy Trial. Facts determinative of this issue are complicated by the fact that when Gee was placed on bond for the instant cause, he was transferred to the State of Alaska on an outstanding warrant. Further,
Page 1153
Gee changed lawyers several times and filed motions pro se additional to pleadings filed by his attorneys.After posting bond on August 5, 1985, in the instant case, Gee was taken to Alaska on the outstanding fugitive warrant. A warrant in this cause was issued after he failed to appear at a pretrial conference held on January 8, 1986. On May 30, 1986, while he was being held in Alaska for trial there, Gee filed a Motion for Discharge Pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(A), which the trial court denied in July, 1986. It appears either Gee or his attorneys filed motions in regard to speedy trial and Gee does not deny asking for continuances, changing lawyers, and his inability to return because of proceedings in Alaska, caused him to lose that remedy.
After being returned to Indiana, Gee appeared in court on December 3, 1986, at which time trial by jury was set for March 19, 1987, and the parties agreed to this trial date. On December 16, 1986, Gee filed his pro se motion for a speedy trial pursuant to Ind.R.Crim.P. 4(B), where he directed the court's attention to the fact the trial date of March 19, 1987 exceeded the seventy day period, and he objected to that setting. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. State, No. 87S00-9605-DP-398.
...the jury and we will not reassess its credibility determinations." Ellis v. State, 707 N.E.2d 797, 801 (Ind. 1999) (citing Gee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1153 (Ind.1988)). We find no basis to reassess the jury's credibility determinations Defendant argues that the "incredible dubiosity" rul......
-
Canaan v. Davis, Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 1/10/2003), Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K.
...doctrine that one may infer the intent at the time of entry from the fact of subsequent commission of a felony. See Gee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1154 (Ind. 1988) (stating that a jury can infer from the surrounding circumstances whether a defendant entered a structure with the intent to co......
-
Price v. State, No. 49A02-9109-CR-378
...whether the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact. Gee v. State (1988) Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1154; McCaffrey v. State (1988) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 523 N.E.2d 435, 436. In determining the existence of the requisite degree of mental culpabi......
-
Hahn v. State, No. 18A02-8801-CR-26
...484 (dresser drawer and closet opened with clothing disturbed, jewelry box opened and contents tampered with); Gee v. State (1988) Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1152 (residence "partially ransacked"); Finley v. State (1988) Ind., 525 N.E.2d 608 (defendant seen leaving premises carrying television set); ......
-
Price v. State, 49A02-9109-CR-378
...whether the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact. Gee v. State (1988) Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1154; McCaffrey v. State (1988) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 523 N.E.2d 435, 436. In determining the existence of the requisite degree of mental culpabi......
-
Stephenson v. State, 87S00-9605-DP-398.
...the jury and we will not reassess its credibility determinations." Ellis v. State, 707 N.E.2d 797, 801 (Ind. 1999) (citing Gee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1153 (Ind.1988)). We find no basis to reassess the jury's credibility determinations Defendant argues that the "incredible dubiosity" rul......
-
Canaan v. Davis, Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 1/10/2003), Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K.
...doctrine that one may infer the intent at the time of entry from the fact of subsequent commission of a felony. See Gee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1154 (Ind. 1988) (stating that a jury can infer from the surrounding circumstances whether a defendant entered a structure with the intent to co......
-
Payne v. State, 49A02-9405-CR-00288
...parties have also focused upon the sufficiency of the record evidencing a congested calendar. See, e.g., Gee v. State (1988) Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1152, 1153; Fortson v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 289, 385 N.E.2d 429; Gill v. State (1977) 267 Ind. 160, 368 N.E.2d Payne's argument here strikes at the ......