ILNews

Court rules on upward sentence revision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held today that appellate courts have the authority to increase a sentence on appeal, but the state can't initiate or cross-appeal review of the sentence and can't ask for a greater sentence if the defendant doesn't initiate an appeal.

The high court granted transfer in Steven McCullough v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0809-CR-508, to address whether an appellate court could increase a sentence and whether the state by cross-appeal may initiate a challenge to a trial court's sentence.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed McCullough's convictions of and sentences for Class C felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery, but reversed his Class D felony criminal confinement conviction on double jeopardy grounds. The appellate court also ruled the state's constitution allowed appellate courts to review and revise sentences and even impose a more severe sentence and that the state couldn't cross-appeal to challenge a defendant's sentence unless the defendant appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.

Justice Brent Dickson, writing for the majority, first analyzed the history of Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution in determining whether appellate courts can increase a sentence. The article, which became effective in 1972, was based heavily on the 1962 American Bar Association Model Judicial Article, which used the Court of Criminal Appeals in England's power as a model. In England at the time, appellate judges could increase a sentence, although the British courts' authority to increase a sentence was diminished in 1968 by Parliament.

The term "revise" refers to a change or alteration, wrote Justice Dickson, and with no specific prohibition against increasing a sentence and given the history of the text in Section 4, the Supreme Court held the appellate review and revise authority includes the power to reduce or increase a criminal sentence on appeal.

However, since McCullough didn't appeal his sentence, the state couldn't on cross-appeal seek a remand for resentencing or request his sentence be increased. When a defendant wants a review of his sentence, the state may respond in its brief with reasons that support an increase in the sentence, the justice wrote.

Justice Theodore Boehm concurred and concurred in result with a separate opinion, with which Justice Robert Rucker concurred with part two of Justice Boehm's opinion.

Justice Boehm agreed with the majority's decision, but came to his conclusion through a different path, he wrote. He believed the 1970 amendment shows appellate review was to be encouraged, but also indicated a strong disposition toward upward sentence revisions.

In terms of revising sentences, Justice Boehm didn't join in the holding that appellate upward revision is dependent on the defendant's challenge of his sentence, finding the scheme the majority described for allowing the state to argue for an increased sentence in its appellee brief to be impractical. It could place defense counsel in an "awkward" position if upward revision by an appellate court is a realistic prospect, he wrote.

In the 36 years the appellate courts have had the authority to increase a sentence, they have not and Justice Boehm wrote the courts should state they have that power but do not expect to exercise it except in the most unusual case.

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