Opinion ID: 2180953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Motion for Discharge

Text: On June 22, 1984, the defendant filed five motions, including a Motion to Discharge and for Evidentiary Hearing based on the allegation that the probable cause determination in this case was not made by a neutral and detached magistrate. On July 9, 1984, the trial court scheduled and conducted a hearing on all pending motions, during which the defendant failed to present evidence or argument in support of the motion to discharge. The trial court did not rule on the motion. On August 7, 1984, the defendant filed with the Putnam Circuit Court Clerk, pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1, a Praecipe for Removal of the case from the jurisdiction of the Putnam Circuit Court. The defendant contended that because the trial court failed to rule on the motion for discharge within thirty days, as required by Trial Rule 53.1(A), he was entitled to have the case withdrawn from the Putnam Circuit Court and have a special judge appointed. At a scheduled hearing held later on the day of August 7, the defendant objected to the trial court's jurisdiction based upon the allegations presented in his praecipe for removal. The trial court ruled that the praecipe was filed prematurely and then denied the defendant's pending motion for discharge. The defendant now argues that the trial court erred in ruling on his praecipe for removal and contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction over the case after August 7, 1984. This argument is without merit. The thirty-day requirements established in Trial Rule 53.1(A) are that a trial court must 1) set a motion for hearing within thirty days, or 2) if the court fails to rule on a motion within thirty days after it was heard, or 3) if no hearing on the motion was required, and thirty days have expired after it was filed, then upon application of an interested party, the case may be withdrawn from the trial judge and transferred to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge. The defendant filed his motion for discharge on June 22, and the trial court held a hearing on July 9. Thus, the court had until August 8 (thirty days after the July 9 hearing) to rule on the motion. The defendant's August 7 praecipe for removal was filed prematurely, and the trial court's ruling on the motion to discharge complied with the thirty-day time limit prescribed in Trial Rule 53.1. There is no error here.