COA: alternative murder sentence illegal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a defendant is entitled to re-sentencing on his murder conviction since the trial court wasn't authorized to sentence him to death and to a term-of-years sentence if the death penalty was overturned.

"With respect to practical considerations, it is apparent from this case that the alternative sentencing scheme is fraught with peril," wrote Judge Cale Bradford. "By providing for one imposed sentence and another potential sentence, this scheme creates ambiguity and confusion with respect to questions of waiver and preservation of error, it blurs issues available for and addressed upon review, and it obfuscates orders and instructions upon remand."

In Chijoike Bomani Ben-Yisrayl, f/k/a Greagree Davis v. State of Indiana,  No. 49A02-0806-CR-512, Chijoike Bomani Ben-Yisrayl appealed his aggregate 150-year sentence for his convictions in 1984 of murder, rape, burglary, and criminal confinement. He received a total of 90 years on the rape, burglary, and criminal confinement convictions and the death sentence for murder. In the event the death penalty was set aside, the trial court also imposed a 60-year sentence for murder.

Through a series of appeals, Ben-Yisrayl's death penalty was eventually overturned and the state moved to dismiss the imposition of it. Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins, who was to hear Ben-Yisrayl's case on remand, recused himself because he had been asked to remove himself on another death penalty case. In 2008, the trial court adopted the 150-year sentence originally imposed.

Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-3 provides the options for murder sentences, but the plain language doesn't explicitly authorize the imposition of both a term-of-years sentence and the death penalty, wrote Judge Bradford. Without explicit authority, and the fact I.C.35-50-2-9, the death penalty statute, makes no reference to it, the appellate court isn't inclined to infer the trial court may elect both options simultaneously.

"Here, because the death penalty and term of years were designated alternative sentences, in theory they were arguably never simultaneously imposed in violation of double jeopardy," he wrote. "Nevertheless, the imposition of two sentences, with one automatically to take effect upon the vacation of the other, especially when the other remains viable and the focus of the proceedings, creates needless risk for overlap and accompanying double jeopardy violations."

Finding his murder sentence to be illegal, the judges remanded with instructions to conduct a sentencing hearing and re-sentence Ben-Yisrayl. He is also entitled to a Blakely hearing at re-sentencing.

Ben-Yisrayl also challenged Judge Hawkins' recusal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court that was assigned this case after Judge Hawkins recused himself and it couldn't properly be transferred back because Judge Hawkins never set aside his recusal.


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. 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?