« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues one Indiana decision today | Main | Ind. Courts - "Andrea McCord has been appointed to fill in as temporary judge in Lawrence Circuit Court" »
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 12 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In State of Indiana v. Charlene Davis , a 7-page opinion, Judge Baily writes:
The State appeals the trial court’s grant of the pre-trial motion to dismiss the pending charge against Appellee-Defendant Charlene Davis (“Davis”). We reverse and remand.NFP civil opinions today (3):The State raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Davis due to Davis being found incompetent to stand trial and her involuntarily commitment to a mental health facility for longer than the maximum sentence for the charged offense.
On February 21, 2004, the State charged Davis in Marion County with one count of Criminal Recklessness, as a Class D felony. * * *
On March 1, 2007, Dr. Beth Pfau, Chief Medical Officer at Larue Carter Memorial Hospital, wrote to inform the Marion County trial court that it was her opinion that Davis could not be restored to competency. Subsequently, Davis’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the basis that Davis had been involuntarily committed for longer than the maximum sentence for the charged crime. On April 26, 2007, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing with the argument of Davis’s counsel. The State appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-4-2(1).
The State contends that the trial court did not have the legal authority to dismiss the charge against Davis. This issue is a question of law. We therefore review the matter de novo. * * *
The statutes for commitment during a criminal proceeding do not speak to any procedure regarding the pending criminal charges once a defendant is committed under the civil statutory scheme.
The State argues that the absence of statutory instruction does not provide the trial court with the authority to dismiss the charges over the State’s objection. Davis’s counsel argues that Jackson v. Indiana is instructive, alleging that the analysis suggests that charges similar to those in the present case should be dismissed. * * *
Davis’s counsel argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis on due process and the right to a speedy trial suggests that permitting charges to remain pending against a defendant who has been declared incurably incompetent is a violation of due process. We cannot agree, because the Court specifically refused to address the question. Furthermore, the basis for requesting dismissal in this case was not that of violations of the constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial. Rather, the foundation was that Davis had been committed, in total under the pretrial and civil commitment statutes, for longer than the maximum sentence for the charged crime.
Davis’s counsel argues but we find no authority for equating time in civil involuntary commitment to credit for time served for pending criminal charges. Involuntary civil commitment is not punishment. Rather, its dual purpose is to protect the public and ensure the rights of the person whose liberty is at stake. [cites omitted] Although civil commitment proceedings may be commenced based on a defendant’s inability to stand trial within the prescribed amount of time, civil commitment is separate and distinct from the criminal proceedings. [cites omitted] Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Davis on the basis of the length of time she has been subject to a civil commitment to a mental health institution. Reversed and remanded.
Ervin Mark Ball v. Kelli T. Ball (NFP) - "Ervin Mark Ball (“Husband”) appeals the distribution of marital assets ordered in the dissolution proceeding filed by his former wife, Kelli T. Ball (“Wife”). Husband presents two issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when it construed the parties’ prenuptial agreement. We affirm. * * * We conclude that the trial court did not err in its construction of “Marital Residence” as used in the Agreement. Thus, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Wife, finding that the Club Estates house was not the Marital Residence but was, instead her Separate Property, and the trial court did not err in finding in the Decree that there was no Marital Residence."
NFP criminal opinions today (9):
Myron Larry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Keith Neff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Farrell Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Billy Ray Isom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Ronald Sweatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
David Michael Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Charles Wayne Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Christopher Bargholz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
C.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2007 03:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions