ILNews

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.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT