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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT