ILNews

Court upholds enjoined counts

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's convictions and sentence for murder and drug possession, saying he waived his right to appeal his denied motions for mistrial because he failed to raise the points properly during his trial.

In David Mark Frentz v. State of Indiana, No. 59A05-0610-CR-559, Frentz raised four issues on appeal: whether the trial court committed reversible error in enjoining and then denying his motions to sever the drug possession counts from the murder count; whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Frentz's motions for mistrial; whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences; and whether Frentz's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Frentz was convicted of murdering his housemate Zackary Reynolds and of Class C felony methamphetamine possession, Class C felony cocaine possession, and Class D felony marijuana possession.

Frentz's doctor told him he needed to quit drinking, and the doctor gave Frentz medication to help him quit. Frentz quit drinking cold turkey that day. That same day, Frentz started to feel bad, called a friend, and told him he had been hallucinating.

Sometime between that night and the next morning, Frentz had shot Reynolds three times and drove down his road several times at a high rate of speed to make it look like multiple vehicles were fleeing his home. Frentz later called 911 and told police he was being robbed and someone else shot Reynolds. Frentz was arrested.

At Frentz's home, police saw marijuana in plain view and got a search warrant for the house where they found nearly 40 grams of marijuana, and cocaine and methamphetamine residue.

While in jail, Frentz told two inmates multiple stories about what happened that night to get their approval on which story to claim was real. During Frentz's trial, he filed a motion to sever the drug charges from the murder count, which the trial court granted in part by severing two other counts. Frentz was convicted and sentenced to 55-years for murder and four years on the drug counts to be served consecutively for a total of 59 years.

Judge Terry Crone wrote in the opinion that no Indiana cases outline a standard of review for a claim raised pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-34-1-9(a)(2), which states offenses may be sufficiently "connected together" to justify joinder if the state can establish the crimes are linked by the same motive. Frentz's motions to sever was technical misjoinder, saying the murder and drug counts were not based on the same conduct to constitute a single scheme. Judge Crone wrote that even if the court were to follow Frentz's recommendation that it follow federal precedent on the matter, it would find any error by the trial court denial to be harmless.

The trial court did not error in denying Frentz's motions for mistrial. Frentz waived his right to appeal the denial of a mistrial following redacted statements mentioned in court because he failed to make contemporaneous objections to the prosecutor's statements about the redacted information. Twice Frentz refused the trial court's offer to admonish the jury after he asked for a motion for mistrial, so Frentz also waived his right to appeal these denials.

In terms of his sentence, the court found no error in the trial judge's process to impose consecutive sentences in this case and given Frentz's character and nature of his offenses, his 59-year sentence is appropriate.
ADVERTISEMENT

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT