Rodolfo Lopez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Sep 20 2019, 10:05 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jennifer L. Koethe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Navarre, Florida Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rodolfo Lopez, Jr., September 20, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-98
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas J.
Appellee-Plaintiff Alevizos, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46C01-1802-F6-149
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-98 | September 20, 2019 Page 1 of 3
[1] On February 15, 2018, the State charged Rodolfo Lopez, Jr., in LaPorte
County with four Level 6 felonies, later amending the charging information by
changing the felonies to Level 5 offenses. On May 24, 2018, Lopez, who was
being held in the St. Joseph County Jail on other charges, filed a request to
proceed pro se and a motion for a speedy trial in LaPorte County. A warrant
for Lopez’s arrest for the LaPorte County charges was served on July 3, 2018.
[2] At Lopez’s initial hearing in LaPorte County on July 6, 2018, he waived his
right to counsel and requested a bench trial, which the trial court scheduled for
August 16, 2018. Lopez did not object to the date, nor did he move for
discharge at any point prior to trial. Following the August 16, 2018, bench
trial, the trial court found Lopez guilty as charged, later sentencing him to
concurrent sentences of three years each on all counts. Lopez now appeals.
[3] Criminal Rule 4(B) provides that “[i]f any defendant held in jail on an
indictment or an affidavit shall move for an early trial, he shall be discharged if
not brought to trial within seventy (70) calendar days from the date of such
motion . . . .” A defendant must maintain a position reasonably consistent with
his request for a speedy trial; therefore, he must object at the earliest
opportunity to a trial setting that is beyond the seventy-day time period. Hill v.
State, 777 N.E.2d 795, 797-98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). If an objection is not timely
made, the defendant is deemed to have acquiesced to the trial date. Hampton v.
State, 754 N.E.2d 1037, 1039 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Furthermore, a defendant
waives review of this issue on appeal if he does not move for discharge or
dismissal prior to trial. Id. at 1040.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-98 | September 20, 2019 Page 2 of 3
[4] In this case, Lopez did not object to the trial date, which he claims exceeded the
seventy-day time limit set forth in Criminal Rule 4(B). Therefore, he
acquiesced to the trial date. Moreover, he did not move for discharge or
dismissal prior to trial, meaning that he has waived the issue for appeal. Lopez
argues that we should afford him leniency because he was pro se, but it is well
established that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and
are required to follow procedural rules. E.g., Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Therefore, he is not entitled to relief on this basis.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-98 | September 20, 2019 Page 3 of 3