Supreme Court takes case involving sentencing discrepancy

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case in which a defendant challenged his sentence following his guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and admitting to being a habitual offender.

A written plea agreement called for James Walsh to be sentenced to 20 years for the burglary conviction and a consecutive 30 years for the habitual offender determination with 20 years of the sentence suspended to probation. The trial court entered the habitual-offender enhancement as a separate, consecutive sentence.

The post-conviction court ordered he be re-sentenced to 20 years for the burglary conviction, enhanced by 10 years because it was an error to impose a separate, consecutive sentence for the habitual-offender enhancement.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a not-for-publication opinion June 24. The trial court was without authority to enter a sentence different than that provided for in the plea agreement, even if it was to Walsh’s benefit, the appellate court ruled. The judges remanded to correct the sentence order and abstract of judgment to reflect that the 30-year sentence for the habitual-offender adjudication serves to enhance the 20-year burglary sentence, with 20 years suspended to probation.

The case is James Walsh v. State of Indiana, No. 52S05-1009-CR-506.

The high court also granted transfer with opinions last week to Max Koenig v. State of Indiana, No. 42S04-1009-CR-505, Virginia Meister v. State of Indiana and Union City, No. 68S04-1009-CV-510, and Rosalynn West v. Betty Wadlington, et al., No. 49S02-1009-CV-509.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?