Court Opinion

ID: 9516452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:42:47.048253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:15.680280
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
Appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for discharge for delay in bringing him to trial. Appellant’s motion was verified and reads:
“1. That on or about the 21st day of March, 1969, a warrant was read to the defendant, Joseph Donald Napiwocki, charging him with the crime of robbery, and subsequently, the capias issued, binding the defendant over to this Court.
“2. That on or about the said day of March 21, 1969, the defendant, Joseph Napiwocki, was arrested and incarcerated in the Marion County jail, subsequently transferred to the Indiana Reformatory on or about the 4th day of April, 1969, without being adjudicated a parole violator, and has been continuously restrained of his liberty since said date of March 21, 1969, without having been brought to trial.
“3. That on May 19, 1969, an affidavit charging the crime of robbery was filed in this Court, but the defendant has not, since said date, been brought to trial; and on the 7th day of January, 1970, the defendant, Joseph Napiwocki, was arraigned in this Court and entered his plea of ‘not guilty’.
“4. That a continuous period in excess of 6 months has elapsed since the defendant’s arrest and incarceration, and that a continuous period in excess of 6 months has elapsed since the filing of this charge in this Court, all during which time, the defendant has been continuously confined in the Marion County jail, and there has been no delay caused by the defendant.”
*37The appellee made no response whatever to that motion; the trial court held no hearing and merely overruled the motion. In this posture we are forced to take the appellant’s allegations in his motion as if they were true. Cummings v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 701, 251 N. E. 2d 663; Thacker v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 665, 262 N. E. 2d 189.
Appellant alleges he was read an arrest warrant for robbery on March 21, 1969, and that he was never adjudicated a parole violator based on the arrest for drunkeness. Since we are bound to accept those facts as true the majority is incorrect in stating that “appellant’s arrest and incarceration in the Reformatory related solely to a conviction for a prior crime having no connection with the prosecution at bar. Appellant was not in jail or on recognizance awaiting trial in the instant case.”
Since we are bound to accept as true the fact that appellant was first arrested for this robbery on March 21, then appellant was being held in the Reformatory on the robbery charge for which he was tried in this case and CR. 4 does apply to him. That rule reads:
“Defendant in jail. No defendant shall be detained in jail on a charge, without a trial, for a continuous period embracing more than six (6) months from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge (whichever is later) ; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was no sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall make such statement in a motion for continuance not later than ten (10) days prior to the date set for trial, or if such motion is filed less than ten (10) days prior to trial, the prosecuting attorney shall show additionally that the delay in filing the motion was not the fault of the prosecutor.”
Appellant was arrested on March 21, 1969, and was not brought to trial within six months thereafter. Appellant al*38leges that he was continuously confined during that period and there is nothing in the record to controvert that allegation. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for discharge under CR. 4A.
Prentice, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 272 N. E. 2d 865.