Joseph K. Hoskins and Daniel McLayea, Appellants-Defendants,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
from the Marion Superior Court Nos. 49G14-1506-F6-21151,
49G20-1506-F5-22744 The Honorable Jose D. Salinas, Judge, The
Honorable Shatrese M. Flowers, Judge
Attorney for Appellants Stephen Gerald Gray Indianapolis,
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Ian McLean Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
Joseph Hoskins and Daniel McLayea appeal the trial
courts' denials of their respective motions for discharge
pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4. Finding that a trial date
was set for both appellants outside the one-year limit set by
Rule 4(C), we reverse and remand.
On June 17, 2015, the State charged Hoskins with Level 6
felony dealing in marijuana and Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. An initial hearing was held and
Hoskins posted bond the same day. The first trial setting for
Hoskins was scheduled for February 8, 2016. Between June 17,
2015, and February 8, 2016, the parties were engaged in
discovery. Hoskins delayed one pretrial conference from
August 18 to September 3, 2015. On February 3, 2016, Hoskins
moved to continue his trial. The trial court granted the
motion and reset the trial for April 4, 2016.
On March 30, 2016, the State moved to continue the trial; the
trial court granted the motion and set a trial date of July
11, 2016. On July 6, 2016, the State again moved to continue
the trial. Hoskins objected and the trial court overruled the
objection, resetting Hoskins's trial to September 26,
On September 14, 2016, Hoskins moved for discharge under
Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). He noted that the time interval
from June 17, 2015, to September 26, 2016, is a total period
of 467 days; he admits that 72 days of delay are chargeable
to him but argues that the remaining balance of 395 days is
charged to the State. Following a hearing, the trial court
denied the motion for discharge. Hoskins now brings this
On June 30, 2015, the State charged McLayea with Level 5
felony dealing in marijuana with a prior conviction and Level
6 felony possession of marijuana with a prior conviction. On
July 1, 2015, an initial hearing was held and McLayea posted
bond; the trial court set a trial date of October 21, 2015.
Counsel entered an appearance for McLayea on July 6, 2015.
On October 15, 2015, the State moved to continue the trial,
and the trial court rescheduled the trial to February 10,
2016. On February 1, 2016, McLayea moved to continue the
trial; the trial court granted the motion and reset the trial
for June 20, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the State moved to
continue the trial; the trial court granted the request and
rescheduled the trial for October 3, 2016.
On September 28, 2016, the State moved to continue the trial.
The deputy prosecutor explained that while preparing for
trial, he had reviewed telephone calls from the jail
indicating that "evidence of highly probative
value" was on cell phones discovered by law enforcement.
McLayea Tr. p. 2-4. The deputy prosecutor explained that the
forensic services unit could accommodate the October 3, 2016,
trial date by providing their analysis of the phones on
October 2. But the State noted that it would provide no time
for McLayea to evaluate the new evidence and, if McLayea
moved to exclude it at trial, his remedy would be a
continuance. McLayea objected to a continuance of the trial
but then stated that, if the evidence were admitted at trial,
he "would need some time to examine the warrant that
they're going to get to search these phones, and there
maybe [sic] some suppression issues . . . so I would just
hope that the court would give me enough time to look at the
warrant [and] have meaningful consultation with my
client." Id. at 5. The trial court granted the
State's motion to continue, asking McLayea if he wished
to have a trial on October 31 or November 14, 2016; McLayea
replied that he was not available on October 31, so the trial
was reset for November 14, 2016.
On November 9, 2016, McLayea moved for discharge under
Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). Following a hearing, the trial
court denied McLayea's motion. McLayea now brings this
Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) provides, in pertinent part, as
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 . .
reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for
discharge, we apply a de novo standard of review to issues of
law and to the application of law to undisputed facts.
Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1039 (Ind. 2013).
We review resolution of disputed factual issues for clear
error, which is that which ...