State ex rel. Johnson v. Kohlmeyer, 873S163
| Decision Date | 21 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 873S163,873S163 |
| Citation | 303 N.E.2d 661,261 Ind. 244 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana on the Relation of Robert L. JOHNSON, Relator, v. The Honorable Harold H. KOHLMEYER, Jr., and Marion Criminal Court Division Three, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ferdinand Samper, Sr., Samper & Samper, Indianapolis, for relator.
David L. Millen, Marion County Deputy Prosecutor, Indianapolis, for respondents.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Relator has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause in which he urges that this Court, 301 N.E.2d 518, is in error in holding that relator's incarceration in Johnson County was unrelated to the indictment filed in Marion County. In an attempt to support his position, the relator has set forth two hypotheticals in his petition for rehearing.
In his first hypothetical the relator cites a situation in which a warrant was issued in one county and an arrest made in another county on said warrant. The relator assumes that even though no charge was pending in the county in which the arrest took place, the arrested person could be left in that county for an indefinite period of time before being returned to the charging county.
In his second hypothetical, relator asks if three distinct crimes are charged in one county would he not be permitted a discharge after seven months of incarceration on each of the three charges.
The relator has misconstrued the law in this case. In the first hypothetical the person charged would be held to answer to the charge from another county, that being the only charge against the arrested person. The State would be required to comply with Rule CR. 4(A).
In his second hypothetical all three charges being in the same county, each charge would be governed by Rule CR. 4(A), and the State would be required in each case to either bring the accused person to trial during the period required or to state why such could not be accomplished as set forth in the rule.
In the case at bar neither of these situations prevails. The relator had been arrested by the authorities of Johnson County pursuant to a warrant issued in that jurisdiction. The service of a capias issued by Marion County subsequent to the arrest in Johnson County served only as a 'hold' for Marion County. The Supreme Court of the United States has noted that where a person is charged with more than one crime he cannot be tried for all at the same time. His rights to a speedy trial must be considered with regard to the practical administration of justice. Beavers v. Haubert (1905), 198 U.S. 77, 86, 25 S.Ct. 573, 49 L.Ed. 950, 954.
The authorities of Johnson County were entitled to carry out their duties pursuant to the warrant issued in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arion v. State
...Johnson County when he was indicted on unrelated charges in Marion County. 261 Ind. 244, 301 N.E.2d 518 (1973), reh'g denied 261 Ind. 244, 303 N.E.2d 661 (1973). Our Supreme Court held that, for Rule 4(A) purposes, the clock did not start ticking until the defendant was returned to Marion C......
-
McCarthy v. State
...incarcerated in Johnson County while the Marion County case was pending. 261 Ind. 244, 301 N.E.2d 518 (1973), aff'd on reh'g , 261 Ind. 244, 303 N.E.2d 661 (1973). On rehearing, the Indiana Supreme Court stated:The Supreme Court of the United States has noted that where a person is charged ......
-
Feuston v. State
...whereabouts. This is true regardless of whether some other agent of the State has this knowledge.5 In State ex rel. Johnson v. Kohlmeyer, 261 Ind. 244, 303 N.E.2d 661 (Ind.1973) (opinion on rehearing), the defendant was incarcerated in Johnson County when he was indicted in Marion County. A......