ILNews

10-year sentence for 5-finger discount not inappropriate, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found a sentence of 10 years for stealing a shirt valued at $14.99 is not inappropriate.

Frederick L. King pleaded guilty to robbery as a Class B felony after taking a shirt from a Fort Wayne retailer. The trial court noted aggravating circumstances that King had three prior juvenile delinquency adjudications and, at the time of the robbery, had been released on bond in another case involving the use of a firearm which resulted in a Class C felony charge. As a mitigating circumstance, the lower court pointed out King had pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.

Consequently, the trial court sentenced King to the advisory sentence of 10 years, but it suspended six years of the sentence to probation.

The COA reviewed Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1212-CR-515, under the authority granted by the Indiana Constitution permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences. Appellate courts may revise sentences if the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

In a per curiam decision, the appeals court concluded the trial court did not impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B) and the sentence does not warrant appellate revision.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • compare this to TARP parasites
    If this chap had only been the head of a "too big to fail" bank, then he could have stole 15 million or maybe billion and not ever seen the inside of a courtroom
  • Wow!
    Ten years for a 15 dollar shirt? Inspector Javert is alive and well in Indiana! Transfer please.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

    2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

    3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

    4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

    5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

    ADVERTISEMENT