Watson v. State
Decision Date | 31 October 2019 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-49 |
Citation | 135 N.E.3d 982 |
Parties | Stanley WATSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Leanna Weissmann, Lawrenceburg, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Samuel J. Dayton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] After serving nearly eleven years in the Department of Correction as an habitual offender, Stanley Watson attained post-conviction relief and had his habitual offender status vacated. The State then filed a new petition alleging that Watson was an habitual offender based on other information. After continuances, delays, and recusals amounting to another six and two-thirds years, Watson was once again adjudicated to be an habitual offender. Now, Watson appeals his habitual offender status, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). Finding that the State failed to bring Watson to court within the one-year deadline, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate Watson's habitual offender status.
[2] In 2001, Watson was convicted of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A conspiracy to deliver cocaine following a jury trial. In a separate hearing, the jury also adjudicated Watson to be an habitual offender based on convictions from 1990, 1992, and 1997. Then, on August 28, 2001, the trial court sentenced Watson to fifty years imprisonment, enhanced by thirty years due to the habitual offender adjudication, for an aggregate sentence of eighty years.
[3] However, on April 2, 2012, the trial court granted Watson's petition for post-conviction relief and vacated the habitual offender adjudication, finding that two of the three felonies cited by the State could not form the basis of an habitual offender adjudication. The State was granted leave to amend the information, and on November 28, 2012, the State refiled its habitual offender allegation based on three other convictions from 1972, 1977, and 1981.
[4] The following represents the long procedural history of this case after the State refiled the habitual offender allegation:
[5] In denying Watson's motion to dismiss, the trial court made the following conclusions of law:
Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 148-49 (some internal citations omitted). In sum, the trial court determined that the trial court and the State were jointly responsible for 1,457 days of delay and that Watson was responsible for 732 days of delay. Neither party disputes these findings.
[6] Following the November 27-28, 2018, rehearing, the jury adjudicated Watson to be an habitual offender. Accordingly, the trial court re-enhanced Watson's sentence by thirty years on December 20, 2018. Watson now appeals.
[7] We consolidate Watson's multiple arguments into one dispositive issue: whether the State failed to bring Watson to court within the one-year deadline articulated in Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).
[8] Generally, "[i]n reviewing Criminal Rule 4 claims, we review questions of law de novo, and we review factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard." Bradley v. State , 113 N.E.3d 742, 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Because the facts here are undisputed, our review is de novo. Id. at 749 ; see also Austin v. State , 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1039-40 (Ind. 2013).
[9] Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) states, in pertinent part, that:
[n]o 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[.]
"This rule is intended to give effect to the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by both the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. State
...Watson's habitual-offender enhancement, concluding that he should have been discharged under Criminal Rule 4(C). Watson v. State , 135 N.E.3d 982, 987–88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Judge Kirsch dissented, believing that relief under Rule 4(C) did not apply to Watson's claim. Id. at 988 (Kirsch, ......