Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2014–2017 · 2 courts · …indiana criminal rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, thereby establishing time limits and providing for discharge in the event that limits are exceeded, at p. 553 ✓
25 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stanley v. Watson v. State of Indiana (ind, 2020-10-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stanley v. Watson v. State of Indiana
Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind. 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Orlando Washington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 164-165. [32] To the extent Washington attempts to argue that his appellate counsel failed to raise the issue of his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution, we observe that the Indiana Supreme Court has stated that: Although “Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, thereby establishing time limits and providing for discharge in the event that limits are exceeded,” Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marcus T. Conner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Discussion and Decision [17] Although “Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial,” Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.1995), “the protections of Rule 4(C) are not co-extensive with the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution] and Article 1, Section 12” of the Indiana Constitution.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott Logan v. State of Indiana
Ind. · 2014 · confidence medium
Discussion Although “Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, thereby establishing time limits and providing for discharge in the event that limits are exceeded,” Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.1995), our review of Rule 4 challenges is “separate and distinct” from our review of claimed violations of the speedy trial rights secured by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 3 and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Andrew Humphreys v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind. 1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
Ind. · 2012 · confidence medium
Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of an accused to a speedy trial. 2 Bridwell v. *1028 State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Curtis v. State
Ind. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although "Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial,” Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.1995), a speedy-trial claim under Rule 4(C) and a speedy-trial claim under either the federal or state constitution must be asserted separately and distinctly.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Truax v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 554 (Ind.1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Foster v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Clark, 659 N.E.2d at 552.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Attebury v. State (4×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 554 (Ind.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sweeney v. State
Ind. · 1998 · confidence medium
This is because “Crim.Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to a speedy trial, thereby establishing time limits and providing for discharge in the event that limits are exceeded.” Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind. 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaillancourt v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
As noted in Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552, 554 (Ind.1995), “a defendant must present evidence, either at the time of the motion for discharge or upon a motion to correct error, demonstrating that the finding of ‘congestion’ is clearly erroneous.” Vaillancourt has not made that requisite showing.
cited Cited "see" Dean v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Alter v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark, 659 N.E.2d at 551 (citing Bridwell v. State, 640 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (Sullivan, J., dissenting), trails, granted, affirmed in part and vacated in part by Bridwell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 552 (Ind.1995)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ray BRIDWELL, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee
49S05-9503-CR-293.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Dec 29, 1995.
659 N.E.2d 552
1995 Ind. LEXIS 218
1995 WL 764268
Annette Fancher Sheldon, James P. Sheldon, The Sheldon Firm, P.C., Indianapolis, for appellant., Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Dana A. Childress-Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for appellee.
Dickson, Debruler, Shepard, Sullivan, Selby.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

DICKSON, Justice.

The defendant, Ray Bridwell, was convict, ed on three counts of Child Molesting and appealed, claiming violations of his constitutional rights to speedy trial and right to discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Bridwell v. State (1994), Ind.App., 640 N.E.2d 487. Bridwell's petition to transfer asserts, inter alia, that the decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with Raber v. State (1993), Ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 506.

Indiana Criminal Rule 4 generally implements the constitutional right of a eriminal defendant to a speedy trial, thereby establishing time limits and providing for discharge in the event that limits are exceeded. Various subsections of Criminal Rule 4 authorize limited exceptions in the event of congested court calendars. In our decision today in Clark v. State (1995), Ind., 659 N.E.2d 548, we address the manner in which trial courts implement, and appellate courts review, the congestion exception.

We therefore grant transfer in the present case for the limited purpose of applying the principles of Clark.[1] In all other respects, we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(8).

Bridwell was arrested on October 28, 1991, and released on bond. The charges were dismissed on the State's motion on April 27, 1992, and refiled on May 7. On September 28, 1992, and four times thereafter, the trial court continued the case due to a congested calendar. Bridwell's trial finally occurred on April 22, 1993. In granting the continuances, the trial court used a pre-printed form which recites that the case is being continued due to con.gestion and is being reset for the court's earliest available setting. The form also contains blanks for the insertion of the current and future trial dates, the date of the final pre-trial conference, and the date of the order. Record 27, 29, 34, 36, 37. Affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals expressly declined to follow Raber "to the extent it requires a trial court to provide documentation of court congestion." Bridwell, 640 N.E.2d at 439.

The defendant alleges that, of the time between his arrest and his trial, 209 days are attributable to the trial court's orders reciting court congestion. He alleges that the trial court failed to keep a sufficient docket record indicating why his trial could not be conducted on the dates scheduled.

To support his appellate argument that the trial court's numerous continuances on grounds of court congestion constituted an abuse of discretion, Bridwell provided the Court of Appeals with certified copies of the chronological case summaries for the cases appearing on the court calendar on the days his case was scheduled to proceed to trial. At the times Bridwell filed two motions for discharge, he did not present any evidence to document his claims that the findings of court congestion were erroneous.

[*554] As we note today in Clark, a defendant must present evidence, either at the time of the motion for discharge or upon a motion to correct error, demonstrating that the finding of "congestion" is clearly erroneous. This requisite showing was not made by Bridwell in the trial court.

Transfer is granted. Except to the extent inconsistent with this opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed. See Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(8). The convie-tions are affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN and SELBY, JJ., concur.
1

The defendant's petition to transfer was initially denied on November 30, 1994, but on December 8, 1994, this Court found the initial ruling was "improvidently issued."

Dissent

DeBRULER, J.,

dissents for the reasons set forth by Judge Barteau in this case, Bridwell v. State (1994), Ind.App., 640 N.E.2d 437, 439, and Judge Rucker in Clark v. State (1994), Ind.App., 641 N.E.2d 75, 77.