Court Opinion

ID: 9526927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:26:04.862751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:18.824750
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the trial court correctly ordered discharge of the defendant when he was not tried within 70 days of his new motion for speedy trial. In doing so, however, I note that the new motion was an oral motion.
An oral motion for speedy trial is not made pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 4(B). The 70-day time period is computed from the time of “filing”. The rule therefore contemplates that the motion be filed. Of course, a filing takes place when the instrument is delivered to, or received by, the proper officer, generally the clerk of the court. Kaster v. Heinrich (1986) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 152. Even if a “filing” takes place by delivery to the judge in open court, the filing nevertheless contemplates a written motion.
Here, however, the trial court granted the oral motion. Accordingly, the arguable defect in the “filing” of the motion was cured and defendant was entitled to be discharged when not tried within the 70-day time period.