Fletcher v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 15
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Fletcher was charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (class A), possession of methamphetamine (class B), and possession of precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (class C); habitual offender allegation also charged.
- Initial hearing on February 19, 2010, public defender appointed; jury trial set for May 11, 2010; special public defender later appointed due to representation issues.
- Fletcher filed pro se motion for fast and speedy trial on March 2, 2010; defense counsel agreed on some continuances and status hearings proceeded.
- State moved to strike Fletcher’s speedy-trial motion on March 15, 2010; hearing scheduled and later status conferences occurred; no explicit merits hearing recorded on March 26 or April 9, 2010.
- On May 12, 2010, Fletcher’s attorney filed a discharge motion under Crim. R. 4(B) asserting more than 70 days elapsed since the motion date without trial; discharge denied June 9, 2010.
- Jury convicted Fletcher of conspiracy (A) and precursors (C); habitual offender found; total aggregate sentence of 70 years with 62 years executed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied Crim. R. 4(B) discharge | State argues representation via counsel governs proceedings; no requirement to entertain pro se motions. | Fletcher argues pro se speedy-trial motion filed before counsel appeared; discharge required after 70 days. | Reversed; trial court erred by denying discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 663 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 1996) (pro se request filed before counsel; counsel zealously pursued trial date)
- Underwood v. State, 722 N.E.2d 828 (Ind.2000) (once counsel is appointed, defendant speaks through counsel)
- Jenkins v. State, 809 N.E.2d 361 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (appointment of counsel; pro se motions not accepted after counsel retained)
- Wilburn v. State, 442 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind.1982) (defendant must object timely to preserve speedy-trial rights)
- Williams v. State, 631 N.E.2d 485 (Ind.1994) (Crim. R. 4(B) protects speedy-trial rights; State must expedite)
- Dukes v. State, 661 N.E.2d 1263 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (timeliness in objecting to trial date is required)