Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoskins v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

September 1, 2017

Joseph K. Hoskins and Daniel McLayea, Appellants-Defendants,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

         Appeal 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, Indiana

          Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Ian McLean Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

          Baker, Judge.

         [¶1] Joseph Hoskins and Daniel McLayea appeal the trial courts' denials of their respective motions for discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4.[1] Finding that a trial date was set for both appellants outside the one-year limit set by Rule 4(C), we reverse and remand.

         Facts

         Hoskins

         [¶2] 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.

         [¶3] 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, 2016.

         [¶4] 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 interlocutory appeal.

         McLayea

         [¶5] 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.

         [¶6] 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.

         [¶7] 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.

         [¶8] 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 interlocutory appeal.

         Discussion and Decision

         [¶9] Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

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 . . . .

         In 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.