Riley, J.
Appellant-Defendant, Tyler Smith (Smith), appeals his conviction for attempted murder, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).
We affirm.
Smith presents this court with two issues on appeal, which we restate as: (1) Whether the trial court erred when it denied Smith’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B); and (2) Whether Smith’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
…
Smith contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B).
…
When Smith filed his motion for a speedy trial on February 3, 2021, our supreme court’s order of December 14, 2020, necessitated by the existence of a worldwide health pandemic, was in effect and tolled the time for a speedy trial until March 1, 2021. In line with the mandates of this order, the trial court scheduled Smith’s jury trial for May 5, 2021. Smith now challenges the trial court’s sua sponte continuance of his speedy trial on May 6. In its order of continuance, the trial court duly noted the continuing emergency conditions. The trial court explained that Fulton County still remained “in the orange,” which, according to the Indiana Department of Health’s COVID-19 Home Dashboard, indicated that the seven-day moving average of test-positivity rates was between 10 to 14.9%, with 100 to 199 new cases being reported each week. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 34). These pandemic conditions created a local court congestion with only one courtroom being available to conduct the hearings of two courts as the superior courtrooms were too small to safely conduct in-person proceedings.
Smith’s argument that the trial court was required to make a specific finding that local pandemic conditions constituted an emergency is without merit. The parameters of Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) clearly specify that a trial court may continue a trial upon taking note of a congestion or an emergency—without the additional requirement of a local emergency. Here, the trial court’s finding that both an emergency and court congestion existed was reasonable in light of the circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic that raged at the time the trial court continued Smith’s trial. The trial court did not err by continuing Smith’s jury trial and denying his motion for discharge.
…
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court properly denied Smith’s motion to dismiss under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B); and Smith’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Affirmed.
May, J. and Tavitas, J. concur