State ex rel. O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court, 584S169

• Decision Date: 12 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 584S169,584S169
• Citation: State ex rel. O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court, 468 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. 1984)
• Parties: STATE of Indiana, ex rel. Robert O'DONNELL, Relator, v. The CASS SUPERIOR COURT and the Honorable Mark Y. Brown, as Judge Thereof, Respondents.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 209

468 N.E.2d 209

STATE of Indiana, ex rel. Robert O'DONNELL, Relator, v. The CASS SUPERIOR COURT and the Honorable Mark Y. Brown, as Judge Thereof, Respondents.

No. 584S169.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 12, 1984.

James H. Austen, Walker, Starr & Austen, Logansport, for relator.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Richard L. Russell, Sp. Pros. Atty., 29th Judicial Dist., Kokomo, for respondents.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

On May 9, 1984, this Court granted relator's temporary Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition. These writs ordered the respondents to dismiss charges filed against relator under the Cause Numbers SS83-11 and SS83-12 and prohibited further proceedings on these charges. This opinion is to make permanent those writs.

Relator was charged by way of two separate informations with two violations of the statute prohibiting the operation of a vehicle while intoxicated. The following timetable is a chronicle of the relevant court activity.

       Date                    Activity
                ------------------  ------------------------------
                December 24, 1982   Defendant arrested for
                                    charges later filed as Cause
                                    Number SS83-11
                February 7, 1983    Defendant arrested for
                                    charges later filed as Cause
                                    Number SS83-12
                February 23, 1983   Informations filed in Cause
                                    Numbers SS83-11 and
                                    SS83-12
                April 19, 1983      Causes continued by agreement
                                    of the parties
                September 21, 1983  Omnibus hearing continued
                                    by Court to November 21
                                    1983.
                November 21, 1983   Omnibus hearing held.
                                    Court states that trial date
                                    will be set.
                November 29, 1983   Notice to take deposition.
                February 1, 1984    Court states it will set trial
                                    in either April or May, 1984.
                February 3, 1984    Defendant files Objection to
                                    Trial Date and Demand for
                                    Speedy Trial.
                February 7, 1984    Six-member jury trial set for
                                    May 1, 1984, at 9:30 a.m.
                                    Defendant's Objection to
                                    Trial Date and Demand for
                                    Speedy Trial filed herein
                                    February 3, 1984, (HI)
                                    denied.
                March 7, 1984       Defendant files a Motion to
                                    Dismiss.
                April 24, 1984      Court denies Motion to
                                    Dismiss.
                

Relator sought to dismiss the charges by invoking Ind.R.Cr.P. 4(C) which states:

"(C) Defendant Discharged. 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 try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall file a timely motion for continuance as under subdivision (A) of this rule. Any defendant so held shall, on motion, be discharged."

Under the rule, the State was under a duty to bring relator to trial by February 23, 1984, unless any portion of any delay, within that year, is attributable to the acts of the relator. See also Ind.R.Cr.P. 4(F).

Respondents claim the delay from April 19, 1983, to the date of the omnibus hearing is to be attributed to the relator. They maintain when a defendant has either agreed to a State sought continuance or by his actions has acquiesced to a continuance then the delay is chargeable to the defendant. Indiana case law supports this position. See Holt v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 334, 316 N.E.2d 362; Moreno v. State, (1975) 166 Ind.App. 441, 336 N.E.2d 675; Ford v. State, (1975) 165 Ind.App. 303, 332 N.E.2d 221. In the case at bar, relator did agree to the April continuance. Thus, respondents argue they have until mid-July to bring relator to trial.

Relator distinguishes the case at bar from the general rule by noting that in his case no trial date had been established when he agreed to the continuance. He argues the setting of a trial date provides the defendant with a benchmark from which he can gauge his decision of whether to agree to the continuance. He maintains, in the absence of a trial date prior to agreement, a defendant can only assume the State will comply with the rule.

A defendant is under no duty to take an affirmative action to ensure his being brought to trial within the time guidelines of the rule. However, a defendant does have a duty to alert the court when a trial date has been established beyond...