Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Penwell

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 23, 2007No. 29A02-0704-CR-328Published

1DissentBarnes, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I believe the State fell asleep at the switch here, and that the delay in setting a trial date for Penwell after the United States Supreme Court denied her petition for certiorari is chargeable to the State.

First, I do not believe this was a case in which the defendant moved for an “indefinite continuance,” such as where the defendant moves for a continuance in order to pursue plea negotiations with the State. See State v. McGuire, 754 N.E.2d 639, 642 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), tram, denied. Here, although the precise date on which the Supreme Court would rule on Penwell’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marshall v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. State v. McGuireIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API