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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT