Charles D. Howard v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 410
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In June 2011 Charles D. Howard made repeated, harassing late-night phone calls to a bartender (Gottman); police responded after a report and identified Howard standing on a public sidewalk near his house. He fled when officers approached, was caught after a short chase, struggled with officers as they attempted to handcuff and escort him, and officers detected a strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech.
- Howard was charged with two counts of Class A resisting law enforcement (one for fleeing; one for forcible resistance), Class B harassment, Class B public intoxication, and Class B disorderly conduct; he was released on bond and later represented himself at trial.
- Pretrial, Howard filed a pro se motion to suppress/dismiss claiming unlawful warrantless entry/arrest and unlawful seizure of his cell phone; the record shows the court denied the dismissal/entry portion and later granted suppression of the cell‑phone evidence (but not the entry/arrest ruling Howard challenges).
- At a jury trial (Howard pro se) officers testified without contemporaneous objection; Howard testified and admitted many phone calls and being intoxicated; he unsuccessfully attempted to introduce suppressed phone records but the court sustained the State’s authenticity objection; he did not object when the State later sought to admit phone records in rebuttal.
- The jury convicted Howard on all counts; he received concurrent sentences. On appeal Howard argued (1) the court failed to rule on part of his suppression motion so evidence of resisting and intoxication should be suppressed, (2) Miranda violations required suppression of post-arrest evidence, and (3) Criminal Rule 4 speedy‑trial violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to rule on portion of motion to suppress limiting review of warrantless entry/arrest | Court did rule; CCS shows denial of dismissal/entry claim | Court failed to rule on that portion; convictions based on evidence that should have been suppressed | Denial of that part was in the record; claim without merit and/or waived because Howard failed to contemporaneously object at trial |
| Whether statements/evidence after arrest should be suppressed for lack of Miranda warning | State did not introduce post‑arrest statements; no evidentiary admission to challenge | Police never gave Miranda; any derived evidence must be suppressed | Waived/meritless — State did not seek to admit post‑arrest statements and Howard failed to preserve objection |
| Whether Criminal Rule 4 speedy trial (trial within one year) was violated | Howard never moved for discharge nor objected to trial dates | Trial exceeded one year; dismissal required | Waived — defendant failed to move for discharge or object; claim lacks cogent argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (contemporaneous trial objection required to preserve suppression issue after pretrial motion)
- Brown v. State, 725 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2000) (defendant waives Criminal Rule 4 claim by not objecting to trial setting or moving for discharge)
- French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2002) (arguments raised first in reply brief are waived)
- Feuston v. State, 953 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (burden on defendant to show not brought to trial timely when seeking discharge under Criminal Rule 4)