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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT