Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 429

Austin was convicted of two Class A felony counts of possession of cocaine stemming from drugs found in a Mercedes and a Rolls‑Royce in his trailer after a stop on Indiana Toll Road.
Police stops and a drug‑sniffing dog followed prior investigative steps, including concerns about Austin’s logbooks, cargo, and a previous bulk cash seizure.
A dog indicated drugs; officers obtained warrants to search the vehicles and recovered cocaine bricks.
Austin moved for discharge under Criminal Rule 4 after a continued trial date due to court congestion; trial occurred September 26, 2011 with a guilty verdict and concurrent forty‑year sentences.
The trial court admitted 404(b) evidence about Austin’s prior control of the Rolls‑Royce, refused a tendered jury instruction on constructive possession, and later imposed sentence within statutory ranges.
On appeal, Austin challenges speedy‑trial discharge denial, admission of evidence, jury instruction, and the sentence, all of which the Indiana Court of Appeals affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy trial discharge denial	Austin argues Rule 4 discharge should have been granted.	State asserts congestion and scheduling justified delay.	No abuse; continuance reasonable given congestion and Harmon trial timing.
Admission of 404(b) evidence about Rolls‑Royce control	Evidence used to show construct possession/knowledge; claims improper under 404(b).	Evidence relevant to control and construct possession; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.	Not an abuse of discretion; evidence had minimal relevance to control/possession.
Jury instruction on constructive possession	Proposed instruction required knowledge plus power/intent tied to drugs in vehicles.	Court gave standard construct possession instruction; no error in tailoring to facts.	No abuse; instructions properly conveyed construct possession requirement.
Sentencing for two Class A felonies	Sentence within statutory range but argued improper weight of aggravators.	Court’s reasons supported by presentence and record; not inappropriate.	Concurred with trial court; sentence affirmed.

Otte v. State, 967 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (speedy trial Rule 4 framework and congestion deference)
Gill v. State, 368 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. 1977) (congestion and calendar priority for criminal over civil matters)
Quirk v. State, 842 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 2006) (stop/seizure reasonableness and drug‑sniffing context)
Freed v. State, 954 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Rule 403 balancing for 404(b) evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
Whitney v. State, 726 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (constructive possession standard; knowledge required beyond mere control)
Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 1995) (particularized priority treatment in speedy‑trial context)
Wilkins v. State, 901 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (congestion findings given deference in Rule 4 appeals)
Davis v. State, 892 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (sentencing considerations and admissibility of presentence report material)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard in reviewing sentences)
Peters v. State, 959 N.E.2d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (aggregate sentence analysis for Rule 7(B) review)
Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (Manages appellate review of sentence for appropriateness)