ILNews

Court splits over sentence modification

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided over whether a man could challenge his sentence following a guilty plea. One judge maintained that the defendant did not consent to his illegal sentence.

In Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana, No. 91A05-1108-CR-389, Todd Crider, who pleaded guilty to Class D felony theft and admitted to being a habitual offender in White Superior Court, challenged the order that the sentence be served consecutively to a sentence imposed in Tippecanoe County that also included a habitual offender enhancement.

The original plea agreement in White County said that the sentence would be served concurrently with a habitual offender enhancement received in Tippecanoe County, but that line was crossed out and initialed by Crider and his attorney. The original agreement also called for a shorter sentence, but that was also crossed out and initialed. The final agreement also said that Crider waived his right to appeal and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to challenge his sentence on the basis that it’s erroneous.

After sentencing, Crider challenged the legality of serving the sentence in the White County case consecutively to the sentence already imposed in Tippecanoe County.

The majority concluded that Crider waived his right to challenge his sentence as erroneous. Based on the original agreement, Crider was aware that the trial court might order the sentences to be served consecutively, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander, yet he moved forward with the plea agreement in its current form.

Judge Melissa May dissented, pointing out that the final plea agreement didn’t contain any reference to whether the sentence would be served concurrently or consecutively with the Tippecanoe County matter. She would order the sentence be modified.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT