McCloud v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1956
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McCloud was arrested on October 15, 2009 and charged with four Indiana misdemeanors the following day.
- Trial was initially set for November 30, 2009 but continued to February 9, 2010 over McCloud's objection; he failed to appear for the February trial and an arrest warrant issued.
- A surety petition in March 2010 indicated McCloud was federally incarcerated, and he remained out of state custody for roughly ten months.
- In October 2010 McCloud appeared at a warrant surrender hearing; he explained federal probation violation and federal custody status while completing the federal sentence.
- McCloud argued that Rule 4(C) required trial by October 16, 2010 and that his absence due to federal custody tolled the one-year clock; the court delayed trial to January 7, 2011, and McCloud sought interlocutory review.
- The appellate court addressed Rule 4(C), IAD, and the Writ, and then assessed the speedy-trial claim under Barker v. Wingo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(C) tolls apply to out-of-state federal incarceration | McCloud | State | Rule 4(C) tolls apply; federAL confinement extends the time |
| Whether IAD or habeas writ secured McCloud's presence | McCloud | State | IAD/Writ not applicable; no detainer/ writ filed to restart Rule 4 clock |
| Whether the delay violated the speedy-trial rights under Barker | McCloud | State | No speedy-trial violation; delay largely caused by McCloud; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind.1998) (IAD/Writ discussion; tolling considerations; detainer vs writ)
- Conn v. State, 831 N.E.2d 828 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (detainer framework under IAD)
- Heflin v. State, 275 Ind. 197, 416 N.E.2d 121 (Ind.1981) (IAD applicability when detainer exists; rule prefaced by broader statutory scheme)
- Blasko v. State, 920 N.E.2d 790 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (delay caused by defendant extends Rule 4 time limit)
- Fisher v. State, 933 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App.2010) (discussion on Rule 4 application to out-of-state incarceration)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S.1972) (four-factor speedy-trial analysis)
- Hart v. State, 292 N.E.2d 814 (Ind.1973) (older prejudice standard for speedy-trial analysis)
- Danks v. State, 733 N.E.2d 474 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (Barker factors applied in Indiana)