ILNews

Justices to take up partial consecutive sentence case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Whether state law allows a criminal defendant to receive a partial consecutive sentence may be determined by the Indiana Supreme Court, which agreed to hear a case successfully argued by a pro se litigant to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Justices agreed to hear Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana, 27S02-1309-CR-584, in which the defendant was convicted of Class A felony charges of rape and criminal deviate conduct and Class B felony robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate executed prison term of 50 years – concurrent 45-year terms for the Class A felonies, plus 20 years for the Class B felony, with five years of that sentence to be served consecutive to the 45-year term.

A divided appeals panel affirmed the sentence from Grant Circuit Court. The majority found the sentence was not erroneous on its face, but Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented, finding partial consecutive sentences are not explicitly allowed by statute.

Justices added three more cases to the docket last week:

State of Indiana v. I.T., 20S03-1309-JV-583, an Elkhart County case in which the Court of Appeals determined the state has no authority to appeal a juvenile court’s decision to rescind an order approving the filing of a delinquency petition against a teen accused of molesting two children.

In the Matter of: S.D. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and J.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 49S05-1309-JC-585, a not-for-publication Marion Superior ruling in which an appeals panel unanimously affirmed a CHINS determination in which the mother challenged sufficiency of evidence and whether the court properly ordered her to participate in home-based counseling.

Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile v. State of Indiana, 58A01-1205-CR-215, affirming an Ohio Circuit conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily over arguments that the would-be victim was not harmed.

All the cases the justices accepted for the week ending Sept. 6 were granted transfer unanimously. The court rejected 21 appeals. Transfer disposition lists may be viewed here.

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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT