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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT