But then, in July of that year, the State was granted permission to retry Watson on the habitual-offender allegation. So, the court granted relief and vacated the thirty-year enhancement. Eventually-in April 2012-the State conceded that two of the convictions supporting the habitual-offender finding were insufficient. Two years later, Watson challenged the enhancement in a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court subsequently sentenced Watson to eighty years in prison-fifty years for the drug conviction and thirty years for the habitual-offender enhancement. Facts and Procedural History In 2001, a jury convicted Stanley Watson of felony dealing in cocaine and found he was a habitual offender. We thus remand with instructions to vacate Watson’s habitual-offender enhancement. Although Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to a habitualoffender retrial, Watson’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the extraordinary six-plus-year delay. The trial court denied the motion, however, and Watson was found to be a habitual offender. During those years of waiting, Watson repeatedly communicated his desire to be tried and he eventually filed a motion to dismiss, asserting violations of Criminal Rule 4(C) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The State was granted permission to retry the habitual-offender allegation, but it would be over six years before that happened. Here, Stanley Watson was serving an eighty-year sentence-including fifty years for a single drug conviction-when the trial court vacated his thirty-year habitual-offender enhancement. This fundamental right is safeguarded by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 12 of our Indiana Constitution and Indiana Criminal Rule 4. The right to a speedy trial-one of our oldest guarantees-imposes an affirmative duty on the government to ensure that criminal defendants receive the swift administration of justice. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court Rush, Chief Justice. Justice Slaughter concurs, except as to Part II.C. 19A-CR-49 Opinion by Chief Justice Rush Justices David, Massa, and Goff concur. Humphrey, Special Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals No. Watson Appellant (Defendant) –v– State of Indiana Appellee (Plaintiff) Argued: | Decided: OctoAppeal from the Ripley Circuit Court No. IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |