ILNews

COA: ‘Appalling character’ of deadbeat dad merits 10-year sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Elkhart County father whose child support arrearage neared $57,000 lost his second appeal of a case that already has gone to the Indiana Supreme Court.

In Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana, 20A03-1206-CR-273, the court rejected Amir Sanjari’s arguments that the charges against him constitute double jeopardy and his 10-year executed prison term represents vindictive sentencing.

“In light of the severity of Sanjari’s offenses and his appalling character, we conclude that his ten-year sentence is not inappropriate,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the unanimous panel.

The Indiana Supreme Court in 2011 ruled in Sanjari’s initial appeal that Indiana Code 35-46-1-5 permits separate Class D felony charges of nonsupport for each dependent child – Sanjari had two – but that only one charge may be enhanced to a Class C felony when the unpaid obligation exceeds $15,000.

Sanjari, who holds a doctorate in nuclear physics and at one time had been employed at the University of Notre Dame, had been sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms, and the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for resentencing. In May, the trial court imposed a sentence of eight years for the Class C felony and two years for the Class D felony.

The COA ruled resentencing was not vindictive and that Sanjari provided no evidence to support the argument. Sanjari “points to only the numerous filings he made, including a habeas corpus petition and numerous motions for change of venue, and material from his website, some of which was highly critical of the trial court and the prosecutors and attorneys of Elkhart County. There is simply no evidence, however, that the trial court took any of Sanjari’s criticisms into account at resentencing,” Bradford wrote.

“Were we to accept Sanjari’s argument, it would open the door for future defendants to establish actual vindictiveness claims simply by being vexatious, a result we obviously cannot endorse.”

The court noted Sanjari’s “onslaught of legal proceedings” against his ex-wife that cost her nearly $100,000 in legal fees alone.

“Sanjari has a history of voluntary unemployment,” Bradford wrote, and “has shown a contempt for the law and an unwillingness to conform his behavior to social norms.

“Sanjari’s character is illustrated thorough his defiance, his abuse of the legal system in order to punish (his ex-wife), and his utter refusal to satisfy his legal obligations to his children. In light of the nature of Sanjari’s offenses and his character, a ten-year executed sentence is fully justified,” the court held.
 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT