ILNews

COA affirms remanded sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man’s remanded sentence of 44 years, finding that his previous drug conviction could serve as both the basis for his consecutive sentence for a firearm conviction and to enhance his sentences for his other convictions.

In Johnnie Stokes v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1009-CR-578, Johnnie Stokes challenged his sentence handed down on remand for Class B felonies robbery, attempted robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Class C felony criminal recklessness. Previously, the Court of Appeals had vacated five of his convictions related to a robbery of a recording studio in 2008 and ordered him to be re-sentenced. He received concurrent terms of 20 years for robbery and 10 years for attempted robbery, to be served consecutive to 20 years on the firearm conviction, and consecutive to four years for criminal recklessness.

Stokes argued that his sentence was improperly enhanced twice for the same prior felony conviction, claiming his 2001 conviction for dealing in cocaine improperly served as both the basis for his consecutive sentence for his firearm conviction and as part of his extensive criminal history that the trial court considered an aggravating circumstance in sentencing him for his other present offenses.

Chief Judge Margret Robb noted that explicit legislative direction permits the “enhancements’ that Stokes opposes. The judges didn’t agree with Stokes’ reliance on Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81, 83 (Ind. 2008).

“Although his sentences for UPFSVF, robbery, and criminal recklessness were all enhanced based – technically, in part – on the same prior felony conviction, Stokes’s case is substantially different from Sweatt because a more appropriate characterization of his enhanced sentences would focus on the general length and severity of his criminal history, not a single conviction among the several,” wrote the chief judge. “The trial court recounted Stokes’s dealing in cocaine conviction while explaining his entire criminal history, and did not rely on it individually.”

The judges also found that Stokes’ sentence doesn’t violate the double jeopardy clause of the Indiana Constitution because the sentences for his convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, robbery, and criminal recklessness were based on different firearms.

They also held that his consecutive sentence for the firearm conviction is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and character.

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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT