ILNews

COA rules on habitual-offender enhancement

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a case involving the denial of a defendant's motion to correct an erroneous sentence. The court also considered whether the trial court dealt correctly with the defendant's habitual substance offender enhancement by treating it as a separate conviction and whether the trial court may properly suspend any portion of the sentence enhanced by the habitual substance offender finding.

In Joseph Bauer v. State of Indiana, 92A05-0704-PC-229, Bauer filed a motion to correct an erroneous sentence, which the trial court denied. Bauer pleaded guilty to three counts: Count I, Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated; Count III, Class D felony operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged a habitual traffic violator; and Count VI, habitual substance offender. Bauer was sentenced to three years for both Counts I and III to be served concurrently, and three years for Count VI, with one year executed and two years suspended, served consecutively, for a total of six years.

Bauer claimed in his motion to correct that the state failed to properly document the charges against him in violation of his constitutional rights, and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. Judge Terry Crone wrote in the opinion that these claims are not the type of claims to be presented in a motion to correct an erroneous sentence, so the court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion regarding these claims.

The state conceded the trial court erred in treating the habitual substance offender finding as a separate conviction. A habitual substance offender finding is not a separate crime but an enhancement of the sentence for the underlying crime to which it is attached, wrote Judge Crone. The court remanded with instructions to amend the sentencing order to show Bauer's habitual offender finding is attached to an underlying conviction and to enhance the sentence for that conviction accordingly.

Sua sponte, the court addressed the propriety of the trial court's suspension of part of Bauer's habitual substance offender enhancement. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-2(a) allows for a court to suspend any part of a sentence for a felony, and subsection (b) lists the crimes for which a trial court may suspend that part of the sentence that is in excess of the minimum sentence. The court disagreed with the plain language of I.C. 35-50-2-10(f) that requires habitual offender enhancements to be fully executed, referring to Devaney v. State, 578 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), which held that an enhanced sentence imposed under I.C. 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended.

Judge Crone wrote that I.C. 35-50-2-10(f) is similar to other statutes governing sentences for underlying felonies, and the language of those statutes do not prevent such sentences from being suspended and the court "sees no reason to treat I.C. 35-50-2-10(f) differently."

The court noted that I.C. 35-50-2-2(c) provides that whenever a court suspends a felony sentence, it shall place the person on probation for a fixed period to end not later than the date that the maximum sentence that may be imposed for the felony will expire. Because of this, the trial court must place Bauer on probation during the time his sentence is suspended, wrote Judge Crone.
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. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT