Solomon v. State, 49A02-9109-CR-421
| Decision Date | 25 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9109-CR-421,49A02-9109-CR-421 |
| Citation | 588 N.E.2d 1271 |
| Parties | Joseph SOLOMON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. 1 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Howard Howe, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Attorney General, Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Joseph Solomon appeals his conviction of robbery, a class B felony, for which he received a sentence of twenty years. Solomon alleges the trial court committed reversible error under Ind.Crim. Rule 4(C) by proceeding to trial over his objection that more than one year had elapsed between his arrest and trial. We agree; accordingly, we reverse his conviction.
The State charged Solomon by information on November 3, 1988. He was arrested on that charge on December 28, 1988 and trial was scheduled for April 20, 1989. Pursuant to Crim.R. 4(C), the State needed to bring Solomon to trial within 365 days of his arrest or by December 28, 1989. See State ex rel. O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 209, 210.
The record reflects that on April 12, 1989, the parties jointly moved for a continuance of the trial scheduled for April 20, 1989. That motion was granted. However, no rescheduling was done until May 3, 1989 when trial was scheduled for July 27, 1989, still within the original one-year period. When a defendant agrees to a continuance before a trial date is set, those days are not attributed to the defendant for purposes of Crim.R. 4(C). State ex rel O'Donnell, 468 N.E.2d at 211. The defendant may assume that when a trial date is finally set it will conform to the limitations of the rule. Id.
The next delay occurred on July 19, 1989 when the State moved for a continuance. The cause was reset for trial on October 5, 1989, still within the one-year period.
On September 27, 1989, Solomon requested a continuance. The matter was not reset until November 1, 1989, thirty-seven days later. A delay attributable to the defendant runs from the time the motion is filed until the judge rules on the motion. Rudy v. State (1976), 168 Ind.App. 73, 341 N.E.2d 516, 519. The State now had to bring Solomon to trial by February 3, 1990. Trial was scheduled for January 18, 1990.
On January 10, 1990, the January 18, 1990, trial date was vacated by the court. No trial date was set. At the pretrial conference which followed on January 24, 1990, defense counsel Rutherford was permitted to withdraw because of a conflict of interest and the matter was again set for pretrial conference. The next entry in the record is a pretrial conference memorandum dated January 31, 1990 showing only that the pretrial conference had been continued by the court. No reason for the continuation of the proceedings is given. When the record is silent concerning the reason for the delay, it is not attributable to the defendant. Morrison v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 458, 461. Moreover, congestion will not be assumed when the docket entry states no reason for the delay. Pillars v. State (1979), 180 Ind.App. 679, 390 N.E.2d 679, 683. See also Young v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 671, 674. Presumably, the change in counsel necessitated the delay; however, Solomon did not cause his attorney's resignation and he cannot be charged with the delay. See id. at 673.
Solomon made no objection to the scheduling of the next pretrial conference on February 14, 1990, or the trial, beyond the one-year mark and therefore waived his objection to the next scheduled trial date. Id.; State v. Tomes (1984), Ind.App.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hurst, 43S03-9705-CR-295
...agreed to by the defendant prior to the setting of a trial date, did not delay the trial under Criminal Rule 4(C). Solomon v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1271, 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Harrington v. State, 588 N.E.2d 509, 511 Defendant's motion to dismiss in this case did not cause a delay in trial. D......
-
Cook v. State
...v. State, 588 N.E.2d 509, 511 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Miller v. State, 570 N.E.2d 943, 945 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); see also Solomon v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1271, 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that the delay between the time the court granted the parties' joint motion to continue the trial date and the......
-
Cook v. State, 33A01-0302-CR-75.
...402 (Ind.1997); Nance v. State, 630 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); Harrington v. State, 588 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct.App.1992); and, Solomon v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1271 in support.1 After reviewing each of these decisions, we conclude they do not support the result in Carr as clearly as the panel I......
-
Carr v. State
...Ct.App.1994),aff'd on reh'g, 636 N.E.2d 1292 (1994); Harrington v. State, 588 N.E.2d 509, 511 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Solomon v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1271, 1272 (Ind. Ct.App.1992). Our supreme court first addressed this issue in State ex rel. O'Donnell. In that case, the State alleged that the defe......