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addressed Marvin Ervin’s conviction, issuing its first not-for-publication decision in September 2010, and its second unpublished memorandum decision in April 2011 following remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT