Bryan Lee Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1706-CR-1285
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Officers responded to Jamie Rowland's home after a complaint about an attempted entry and found Jordan near a motorcycle in the driveway; he moved a backpack from his back into a nearby car and then into the driver’s seat of Rowland’s car.
- A vehicle check showed the motorcycle plate matched a stolen Yamaha; Jordan resisted arrest and the struggle caused items to fall from his pockets.
- Law enforcement recovered methamphetamine, marijuana, a glass pipe, a torch, scales, a baggy, a switch blade knife, and toiletries from the backpack.
- Jordan was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, and multiple lesser offenses, plus an habitual offender enhancement.
- The trial court initially assigned a public defender; Jordan moved to continue the trial to hire private counsel (Caroline Briggs), but the continuance was denied with Briggs not yet appearing; jury trial proceeded and Jordan was convicted on all counts and sentenced to aggregate 26 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion | Jordan argues the motion was warranted to hire private counsel | State contends the date was acknowledged; witnesses subpoenaed; no prejudice shown | Not an abuse of discretion; trial date acknowledged and no shown prejudice |
| Whether denial of continuance violated the Sixth Amendment | Right to counsel of choice was impaired | Right not absolute; continuances disfavored shortly before trial | No constitutional violation; no prejudice shown; Briggs’ appearance was not denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to deliver ten grams or more of methamphetamine | Large amount of meth, cash, scales show intent to deliver | Possession for personal use could be possible; weight requirement not proven | Sufficient evidence supports intent to deliver beyond reasonable doubt |
| Impact of Barham/Dickson line of cases on continuance ruling | Barham compels consideration of counsel appearance | Dickson distinguishes; not error here | Court did not abuse discretion; analogous to Dickson; did not deny Briggs’ appearance; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Flake v. State, 767 N.E.2d 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances in criminal cases)
- Risner v. State, 604 N.E.2d 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (continuances generally disfavored; need for preparation)
- Barham v. State, 641 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (right to counsel of choice; appearance versus continuance denial)
- Dickson v. State, 520 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. 1988) (no abuse of discretion where case prepared; witnesses scheduled)
- Conrad v. State, 747 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court did not err denying continuance after scheduling)
- Bookwalter v. State, 22 N.E.3d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (enhancement requiring amount of drug; not necessary to prove delivery)
- Cline v. State, 860 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (possession of large amount supports intent to deliver (circumstantial))
- Isom v. State, 589 N.E.2d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 1989) (possession of narcotics can indicate intent to deliver)