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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.