ILNews

COA reverses conviction based on continuing crime doctrine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed one conviction against a man charged with multiple offenses for stabbing his wife.

In Richard Leggs v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1105-CR-522, Richard Leggs appealed his conviction on multiple charges and argued that his two convictions of criminal confinement violate the continuing crime doctrine.

Leggs attacked his wife in their apartment in 2010, first threatening to kill her and then pinning her down and stabbing her twice in the stomach.

A trial court found Leggs guilty of two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

The trial court ordered the following four sentences served concurrently: 14 years for Class B felony criminal confinement, five years for Class C felony intimidation, 545 days for Class D felony criminal recklessness, and 365 days for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. For the second count of Class B felony criminal confinement, the trial court sentenced Leggs to six years and ordered it served consecutive to his other sentences, for an aggregate sentence of 20 years.

In his appeal, Leggs argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of Class C felony intimidation. But the COA affirmed the trial court, holding that Leggs did not file a motion to dismiss the charges in trial court, nor did he demonstrate that deficiencies in the charging information rose to the level of fundamental error.

The appellate panel found the two convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement violated the continuing crime doctrine. Accordingly, the court reversed one of his criminal confinement convictions and remanded for resentencing.

 

 

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