ILNews

COA rules on man's theft conviction for third time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following an order from the Indiana Supreme Court that the lower appellate court more fully address the Proportionality Clause of the Indiana Constitution, the Indiana Court of Appeals has again upheld a man’s felony theft conviction.

The judges concluded that the classification of theft as a Class D felony doesn’t violate the Proportionality Clause under Article I, Section 16 of the state constitution. This is the third time the appellate court has addressed Marvin Ervin’s conviction, issuing its first not-for-publication decision in September 2010, and its second unpublished memorandum decision in April 2011 following remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.

On July 7, the justices again ordered the COA to take another look at Ervin’s argument involving the Proportionality Clause. Ervin was arrested and charged with Class D felony theft for taking a bike from an apartment building and selling it at a pawn shop. He offered a proposed jury instruction on Class A misdemeanor conversion, which was overruled by the trial court.

In Thursday’s opinion in Marvin Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP), Nos. 49A05-1107-CR-347; 49A02-1002-CR-123, the judges noted that the decision set forth the facts and disposition of the remaining issues as were reported in its previous NFP decisions with minimal modifications. They affirmed the admission of pawn shop documents into evidence pursuant to the business record exception of the hearsay rules.

They also found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on conversion in light of Morris v. State, 921 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), in which the appellate court held that a criminal conversion instruction as a lesser-included offense of felony theft was warranted by the evidence. In the instant case, the judges found no evidentiary dispute about Ervin’s intent to deprive someone of any part of the property’s value or use, as is required to convict someone of Class D felony theft. The intent element is not required to convict someone of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

The COA then addressed Ervin’s argument that the classification for Class D felony theft violates the Proportionality Clause because that offense is “one and the same” as criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor. The judges found Ervin’s reliance on Morris for the proposition that the two offenses are one and the same to be unpersuasive. They noted that the Indiana General Assembly has not merged the two offenses into one or amended the statutes to change the elements of the offenses, wrote Judge John Baker.

“In our view, we find nothing ‘incongruous or unfair’ about the legislature’s decision to punish the two crimes differently,” he wrote.

They noted that time and again, the appellate court has found that an evidentiary distinction exists between the two offenses in practical application. The penalty for Class D felony theft is not unconstitutionally disproportionate to that of Class A misdemeanor conversion, he wrote.

Ervin’s attorney, Joel Schumm, told Indiana Lawyer that he was surprised the decision was classified as an NFP because it is an issue of first impression. He said he’s asked that it be published. He believes the opinion conflicts with the language in Morris and other cases. He said the Model Penal Code and most states distinguish misdemeanors and felonies based on the value of property taken. He’s going to seek transfer to the Supreme Court.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT