ILNews

COA: Judge didn't err in rejecting master commissioner's sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a Marion Superior judge did not err when she rejected a master commissioner’s sentence of a man who pleaded guilty to a drunk-driving charge because the master commissioner didn’t have the authority to enter a final judgment on the sentence.

In Timothy Long v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1105-CR-381, Timothy Long appealed the sentence imposed by Marion Superior Judge Linda Brown following Long’s guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and being a habitual substance offender. Marion County Master Commissioner Teresa Hall accepted Long’s guilty plea and sentenced him to one year executed in the Marion County Jail, enhanced by one year executed in jail and two years executed in the Marion County Community Corrections work release program for being a habitual substance offender.

But Brown declined to approve Hall’s sentencing recommendation and instead sentenced Long to one year executed in jail, enhanced by two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction and one year executed in the work release program.

Long argued that Hall was statutorily authorized to impose his sentence and Brown erred by rejecting it. But the statute only allows a master commissioner to impose a sentence on a person if the master commissioner presides at a criminal trial. In this case, Long pleaded guilty before Hall; she did not preside over a trial for him.

The judges rejected Long’s argument that Boyer v. State, 883 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), or Ivy v. State, 947 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), supported his claim.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT