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addressed Marvin Ervin’s conviction, issuing its first not-for-publication decision in September 2010, and its second unpublished memorandum decision in April 2011 following remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT