Sickels v. State, 960 N.E.2d 205

Sickels’ 1992 Elkhart dissolution ordered $118 weekly child support for three children with arrearage of $3,905, and G.S. lived in Indiana while Sickels lived in Michigan.
Between 1997 and 1999 Sickels did not pay any court-ordered support for any child.
On September 26, 2001, Indiana charged Sickels with three counts of nonsupport (Class C felony per child) based on arrearages exceeding $15,000 per child.
In 2010 Sickels was extradited from Michigan to Indiana; he filed a Rule 4(C) speedy-trial motion, which the court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
On January 7, 2011, after a bench trial, Sickels was convicted on all three nonsupport counts (two Class C, one Class D) and sentenced to a ten-year aggregate term with restitution and a commitment to community corrections.
On appeal, the court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, noting restitution/arrearage clarification and procedural sentencing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy of multiple nonsupport counts	Sickels contends only one civil order exists; multiple counts violate double jeopardy.	State can pursue multiple nonsupport felonies for multiple dependents under prior statute.	No double jeopardy violation; multiple offenses involve different dependents and elements.
Criminal Rule 4(C) discharge denial	Delay violated Rule 4(C) by not bringing to trial within one year.	Delay attributable to extradition process; not chargeable to State.	Court did not abuse discretion; Rule 4(C) clock began when Sickels was under Indiana’s jurisdiction.
Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation	Nine-year delay violates speedy-trial rights.	Delay partly attributable to Sickels and legitimate extradition complexities.	No Sixth Amendment violation after balancing Barker factors; delay not prejudicial.
Personal jurisdiction	Challenge to court’s jurisdiction over Sickels.	Raised too late; he appeared without contesting jurisdiction.	Waived; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Sentencing and restitution issues	Arrearage amount and restitution to the victim were correctly handled.	Restitution to the non-victim and possible clerical ambiguities require remand.	Remand for restitution clarification; correct the victim and sum; otherwise affirmed sentencing.

Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy elements test (same elements) for multiple offenses)
Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (statutory elements test aligned with federal Blockburger)
Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind.1998) (Rule 4(C) clock starts when defendant is within jurisdiction)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (balancing test for speedy-trial rights)
Bowman v. State, 884 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (presumed prejudice and burden on State in speedy-trial analysis)
Greengrass v. State, 542 N.E.2d 995 (Ind. 1989) (extradition delays and State’s duty to act under Rule 4(C))
Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind.2011) (Rule 4(C) abuse of discretion standard)
Crawford v. State, 669 N.E.2d 141 (Ind.1996) (speedy-trial balancing framework in Indiana sentencing context)