ILNews

Felony can't be modified to misdemeanor 9 years later

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions a trial court’s modification of a criminal sentence from a Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor nine years after the appellee-defendant pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The state appealed the Noble Superior Court’s modification in State of Indiana v. Jeffrey Brunner, No. 57A04-1003-CR-121. Jeffrey Brunner raised the issue of whether the state’s appeal was authorized by law, and the state questioned whether the trial court erred in granting Brunner’s petition for relief.

Because the Court of Appeals found that Brunner’s request was a petition of post-conviction relief, it held the state could appeal the decision. However, today's  opinion noted the court hadn’t recognized Brunner’s request as a petition for PCR, and had not entirely followed the rules for a PCR. “But ‘the failure to enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law is not reversible error,’” wrote Judge Edward W. Najam Jr.

As for the issue of the trial court’s error in granting a modification from a felony to a misdemeanor, the COA found the statute does allow for such a change.

However, “Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-7(b), on which the trial court relied in granting Brunner’s request, states: ‘if a person has committed a Class D felony, the court may enter judgment of conviction of a Class A misdemeanor and sentence accordingly.’ Applying that statute to these facts is a question of first impression and requires us to divine the intent of the legislature,” Judge Najam wrote regarding the amount of time that had passed between the conviction and the petition for PCR.

In considering the General Assembly’s intent in writing the statute, the Court of Appeals concluded this authority of the court was meant to apply “to the moment the court first enters its judgment of conviction and before the court announces the defendant’s sentence. That intent is made clear in the language of the statute itself, which describes a timeframe after the finding of a Class D felony but before the entry of sentence. … That intent is also supported by the differences in sentences available to persons convicted of Class D felonies and those convicted of Class A misdemeanors,” Judge Najam wrote.

In this case, Brunner was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated in November 1999. He pled guilty in August 2000. It was his third conviction of an OWI, which the state would note in its responses to Brunner’s requests to modify his felony to a misdemeanor.

Brunner sent a letter to the court Dec. 26, 2007, regarding the August 2000 conviction asking for the felony to be changed to a misdemeanor. The state filed its objection April 14, 2008.  Following the June 3, 2008, hearing on the matter, the court denied Brunner’s request.

Brunner refiled his letter Jan. 15, 2009, and the state again filed a response. There was no order granting or denying the request.

Brunner again filed a letter asking for the modification Sept. 16, 2009, and the state again filed a response Sept. 28, 2009. Following an Oct. 16 hearing, the court granted Brunner’s request.

“Again, the trial court’s decision on whether to enter judgment on a Class D felony or a Class A misdemeanor … may be made only at the moment of the original entry of the judgment of conviction,” Judge Najam concluded. “That did not happen here. Instead, more than nine years after the trial court entered its judgment of conviction against Brunner as a Class D felony, the trial court revisited that issue, vacated the Class D felony conviction, and imposed a Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court’s reliance on Section 35-50-2-7(b) to grant the requested relief was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and an abuse of discretion.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT