Goudy v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the defendant waived his right to a speedy trial by failing to object to a pre-trial hearing set beyond the seventy day limit
• holding that the defendant waived his earlier request for a speedy trial by failing to object to a pre-trial hearing set beyond the seventy-day limit
• holding that “defendant waived his earlier speedy trial request by acquiescing in the setting of an omnibus date, and by necessary implication, a trial date, beyond the seventy day limit permitted by Criminal Rule 4(B)(1)”
• observing that the defendant made no claim that the PSI contained factual errors or inaccuracies requiring additional time to try to rebut and finding no error in the trial court’s denial of his request to continue the sentencing hearing
• noting “investigative police reports are not discoverable and are considered protected as the work product of the prosecutor”
• because defendant was absent from the jurisdiction when charges were refiled, “the speedy trial clock did not begin to run again until defendant was again held in jail in Indiana”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).