ILNews

COA: Man's sentence could be increased

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined the recent ruling by the state's highest court regarding upward sentence revisions was applicable to a defendant's sentence. The appellate court declined to revise his sentence, however, because the man's brief was filed before the Indiana Supreme Court decided McCullough.

In Billy Atwood v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0809-CR-844, Billy Atwood appealed his convictions of possession of paraphernalia, operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended, and possession of cocaine. The state cross-appealed the trial court erred in granting Atwood permission to file a belated appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the permission to file the belated appeal and affirmed Atwood's convictions based on sufficient evidence. The appellate court also found the trial court didn't commit reversible error by giving an improper instruction informing the jury of defenses available to a defendant charged with possession of cocaine with 1,000 feet of a school over Atwood's objection.

Atwood also appealed his 12-year sentence for his Class B felony conviction of possession of cocaine, claiming it was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. The state, in response to Atwood's brief that was filed before the Feb. 10, 2009, decision in McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 746 (Ind. 2009), argued Atwood's sentence was unduly lenient. The state cited McCullough for support of revising Atwood's sentence upward.

Under McCullough, when a defendant requests appellate review and revision of his criminal sentence, the reviewing court may affirm, reduce, or increase the sentence, and announced the Supreme Court's view of the procedural posture necessary for the state to seek an increase in a sentence, wrote Judge James Kirsch. That ruling also held the state couldn't initiate review of a sentence on appeal or cross-appeal, but was restricted to making the argument in response to a request for a sentence revision initiated by the defendant.

Using Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 690-691 (Ind. 2005), the appellate court determined McCullough could apply to Atwood's case even though the ruling came down after Atwood filed his appeal.

In the instant case, since Atwood appealed his sentence, it is open for the appellate court to increase it. However, because his brief was filed before McCullough was decided, the Court of Appeals was unable to say with confidence Atwood would have raised the issue regarding the appropriateness of his sentence had he known it could be increased, wrote Judge Kirsch. As such, the appellate court declined the state's invitation to reduce the sentence upward.

The Court of Appeals did affirm his 12-year sentence, which included a two-year enhancement, finding it to be appropriate given his criminal history.

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT