ILNews

State can't cross-appeal sentence under rule

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The state may not cross-appeal a sentence for an abuse of discretion or inappropriateness unless the defendant appeals his or her sentence in the appellant's brief, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The issue of the state filing a cross-appeal of a sentence is a matter of first impression.

In Steven McCullough v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0711-CR-931, Steven McCullough filed an appeal of his convictions of two counts of criminal confinement, battery, and the finding he was a habitual offender. He did not appeal his sentence.

On cross-appeal, the state asserted the trial court abused its discretion in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in imposing McCullough's sentence and the sentences for the Class C felony criminal confinement and habitual offender counts are inappropriately lenient.

After examining Appellate Rules 7(A) and 7(B), and Article 7, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution, the Court of Appeals determined that under Appellate Rule 7(B) and the Indiana Constitution, nothing prohibited the state from cross-appealing a defendant's sentence.

However, the appellate court interpreted Rule 7(A) as making the state's right to cross-appeal a sentence with respect to an abuse of discretion or inappropriateness contingent upon the defendant initiating an appeal of his sentence in his appellant's brief, wrote Judge Terry Crone. Because McCullough didn't appeal his sentence, Appellate Rule 7(A) prohibits the state's cross-appeal.

Judge Michael Barnes, who concurs in result, wrote in a separate opinion that he disagrees with the majority regarding whether the state could cross-appeal a sentence. He wrote the state can't challenge a sentence on cross-appeal in the absence of legal authority expressly authorizing it to do so.

Based on the language of Rule 7(A), which allows the state to cross-appeal where "provided by law," Judge Barnes wrote he believes the issue in this case is whether Indiana law expressly allows such a challenge; he concluded that state law doesn't allow a challenge.

"It is my belief that Indiana jurisprudence leans heavily in the direction of not allowing such an appeal. In my opinion, the majority's holding chills the right of defendants to appeal sentences. Until directed otherwise, either by our legislature or our supreme court, I conclude that the State is not permitted to challenge a defendant's sentence on cross-appeal in any circumstance," he wrote.

The three-judge panel did unanimously conclude there was enough evidence to support McCullough's convictions; however, it also agreed that his convictions of Class C and Class D felony criminal confinement violate the double jeopardy law, causing the appellate court to vacate his Class D felony confinement conviction.
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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT