Dugniqio Forest v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
82A04-1609-CR-1980
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- In January 2015, while incarcerated in Vanderburgh County Jail, Forest was found with 16.23 grams of cocaine in a box of cheese crackers in his cell. He was charged with Level 2 dealing and Level 5 trafficking with an inmate; a jury convicted him of the lesser-included Level 4 possession.
- Forest initially requested a speedy trial and a March 26, 2015 date was set, but that date was vacated after Forest was placed on federal hold for pending federal gun charges.
- Forest renewed a speedy-trial request on January 26, 2016; the trial was set for March 28, 2016. On March 15, 2016, the State moved for DNA/fingerprint testing and requested a continuance under Ind. Crim. R. 4(D); the trial court granted the continuance over Forest’s objection.
- The State’s lab informed it would need at least 45 days to complete testing; Forest argued the State should have tested earlier while he was under federal hold and that the continuance was improper.
- Forest was tried in June 2016, convicted of Level 4 possession, and sentenced to 11 years (to run concurrent with his federal sentence). He appeals, raising (1) the propriety of the Rule 4(D) continuance and (2) whether his sentence is inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Forest) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted a continuance under Ind. Crim. R. 4(D) | The State argued the DNA/fingerprint evidence was unavailable, reasonable efforts were made, and Rule 4(D) permits a 90-day extension when evidence can be had within that time | Forest argued the State unreasonably delayed testing (could have tested while he was on federal hold) and thus should not get a Rule 4(D) continuance | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence was unavailable when State moved and State was entitled to present it |
| Whether Forest’s 11-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State argued sentence fits nature of offense (large quantity of cocaine in jail) and Forest’s extensive criminal history | Forest argued an advisory sentence (6 years) would be more appropriate | Court affirmed sentence: given offense gravity and extensive criminal record, sentence not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cundiff v. State, 967 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. 2012) (speedy-trial right is a fundamental constitutional protection)
- Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013) (explaining Rule 4(B) requirements and limits on continuances for court congestion)
- Otte v. State, 967 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (reasonableness of delay judged in context; exigent circumstances can justify delay)
- Wilhelmus v. State, 824 N.E.2d 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (Rule 4(D) requires evidence be unavailable and the State entitled to present it)
- Chambers v. State, 848 N.E.2d 298 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion where evidence was already available yet State sought continuance)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) guidance: focus on aggregate sentence; appellate role limited to leavening outliers)