ILNews

Court grants transfer to clarify appeals by state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted a transfer with opinion to address conflicting rulings regarding the state's ability to challenge the legality of a criminal sentence without first filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence. The high court held the state may challenge a criminal sentence by appeal without first filing the motion and that appeal doesn't have to happen within 30 days of the sentencing judgment.

The Supreme Court split 3-2 Tuesday in its decision in Samuel Hardley v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-0905-CR-290, in which the state argued in its reply brief to Samuel Hardley's appeal of his theft, criminal confinement, and battery convictions that the trial court erroneously imposed concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. Statute says consecutive sentences are mandatory when one crime is committed while on personal recognizance for another crime, which happened in the instant case.

The Court of Appeals ruled the state could challenge the sentence based on the doctrine of fundamental error and also declined to require the state to challenge the allegedly erroneous sentence within 30 days of the final judgment, which departs from the ruling in Hoggatt v. State, 805 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Hardley argued on appeal for transfer that the state waived any right to challenge his sentence because it failed to raise an objection in the trial court, didn't file a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and didn't raise the issue until cross-appeal.

The majority didn't agree with the 30-day deadline for the state to challenge a sentence by direct appeal, as was held in Hoggatt, nor did they extend the "facially erroneous" requirement in Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004), to restrict efforts by the state to challenge an illegal sentence, wrote Justice Brent Dickson.

The high court held Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-15 also allows the state to challenge illegal sentences; the state's appellate sentence challenge, when the issue is a pure question of law, is an acceptable substantial equivalent to the motion to correct erroneous sentence; and an appellate challenge by the state doesn't have to be initiated in the trial court or commenced within 30 days of the judgment, wrote the justice.

Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker dissented in a separate opinion that the state should not be allowed to appeal an erroneous sentence without first raising the issue in the trial court. Justice Boehm wrote that he would follow the high court's ruling in Griffin v. State, 493 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. 1996), and require the state follow the procedure authorized in the ruling or pursue a motion to correct error under Indiana Trial Rule 59 to preserve its right to challenge a sentence on appeal.

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