Charles A. Allen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1609-CR-2241
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- In early morning 9/14/2013 Officer Timothy Elliot intervened in a street fight; he was punched by a man who then fled. Witnesses later identified Charles Allen as the assailant; Allen was arrested and charged with class D felony battery and class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
- Allen was initially represented by a public defender, discharged counsel, then represented again; he later chose to proceed pro se and repeatedly sought continuances.
- Numerous delays occurred between charge and trial; the jury trial ultimately was held on August 25, 2016 (almost three years after charge).
- At trial Allen represented himself; the defense was mistaken identity. He was convicted on both counts and adjudicated a habitual offender, receiving a six-year sentence.
- On appeal Allen raised (1) violation of Ind. Crim. R. 4(C) ("one-year rule") arguing he was entitled to discharge, (2) fundamental error for lack of standby counsel, and (3) fundamental error for the trial court’s quashing of subpoenas for officer conduct/complaint records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim. R. 4(C) discharge was required | Many periods of delay were attributable to Allen or court congestion so trial was within Rule 4(C) when those delays are counted against Allen | Trial occurred beyond one year excluding only defendant-attributable delays; Allen contends additional delays should not be charged to him | Court held trial occurred within Rule 4(C) after attributing specific off‑record continuances and failure-to-appear delays to Allen; denial of discharge affirmed |
| Whether trial court committed fundamental error by not providing standby counsel | Appointment of standby counsel is discretionary; evidence showed Allen either waived or was ambivalent about standby counsel before trial | Allen asserts he requested standby counsel and trial court deprived him of assistance, producing fundamental error | Court found no clear fundamental error: appointment is discretionary, record shows Allen’s requests were inconsistent and he did not reassert standby counsel at trial |
| Whether quashing subpoenas for IMPD Internal Affairs / Citizen Complaint Office was fundamental error | Quashing was appropriate and not preserved for appeal | Allen claims subpoenas were improperly quashed and this was fundamental error | Court summarily concluded Allen failed to show fundamental error for the quashed subpoenas |
| Whether trial court erred in attributing certain delays (Nov 13, 2013–Jan 15, 2014 and Jan 16–Mar 5, 2014) to Allen | Continuances and failure-to-appear by Allen caused those delays; record supports off‑record agreements | Allen argued some delays were not attributable to him and invoked Isaacs precedent limiting attribution | Court rejected Allen’s reading of Isaacs, found record evidence of agreed continuances, and attributed the delays to Allen |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2016) (one-year rule requires trial within one year excluding defendant- or court-congestion-attributable delay)
- Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013) (standards of review for Crim. R. 4 rulings: de novo for law on undisputed facts; clearly erroneous for factual findings)
- Isaacs v. State, 757 N.E.2d 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (failure-to-appear may be charged to defendant only for the delay traceable to the absence; attribution depends on record)
- Sherwood v. State, 717 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. 1999) (no absolute right to standby counsel when proceeding pro se)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (defines narrow scope of fundamental error doctrine)