Kelvin Fuller v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 425
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fuller appeals the Lake County trial court's denial of his Crim. R. 4(C) discharge motion.
- The State filed charges June 13, 2007: robbery (Class B), confinement (Class C), strangulation (Class D), and intimidation (Class D).
- Fuller was extradited back to Indiana in May 2009 after Wyoming convictions and inter-state proceedings.
- The Crim. R. 4(C) clock began May 15, 2009 when Fuller returned to Indiana's jurisdiction, unless tolling applied.
- Fuller sought discharge June 13, 2012; the State opposed tolling due to lack of actual knowledge by Indiana authorities.
- The trial court denied discharge on July 6, 2012; this interlocutory appeal was accepted February 4, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Crim. R. 4(C) discharge | Fuller argues clock tolled by lack of notice to Indiana authorities | State contends no tolling occurred; discharge proper only if authorities knew or should have known | No abuse; clock did not start until filing date; discharge denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1998) (Crim. R. 4(C) clock starts when defendant comes within jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. State, 933 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Crim. R. 4 does not apply when incarcerated in foreign jurisdiction)
- Werner v. State, 818 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (tolling hinges on actual knowledge; notice requirement for waiver of tolling)
- Fueston v. State, 953 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (imputed knowledge of jail to court/prosecutor rejected; purpose to prompt early trials, not to discharge)
- Delao v. State, 940 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (record burden on defendant; not all evidence proves notice to authorities)
- State v. Jackson, 857 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (speedy-trial considerations under Crim. R. 4)
- Cook v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. 2004) (State has duty to bring defendant to trial timely; defendant need not remind court)
- Martin v. State, 419 N.E.2d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (burden on defendant to show lack of timely trial and non-responsibility for delay)