ILNews

First impression in 'non-suspension' rule case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined in a case of first impression that the state's 'non-suspension rule' in Indiana Code depends on the status of the prior criminal conviction at the time of sentencing for a subsequent conviction. Because a woman's prior unrelated Class D felony conviction wasn't reduced to a Class A misdemeanor at the time she was sentenced for a later drug conviction, her 20-year sentence stands.

In Julie A. Gardiner v. State of Indiana, No. 08A02-0810-CR-874, Julie Gardner appealed her sentence for dealing in methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park as a Class A felony. She argued the trial court erred when it determined Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-2(b)(1), the non-suspension rule, prohibited the court from suspending any portion of her statutory minimum 20-year sentence because she had a prior Class D felony conviction in Hamilton County that was later reduced to a Class A misdemeanor following a plea agreement and her successful completion of one year on probation.

No Indiana court had addressed the issue of whether a reduction of a prior conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to a plea agreement affects the application of the non-suspension rule. Based on Hutcherson v. State, 411 N.E.2d 962 (Ind. 1982), only a reversal or vacation of a prior conviction could allow for Gardiner's dealing in methamphetamine sentence to be reduced under the non-suspension rule. If the Hamilton County trial court had immediately reduced her prior felony to the misdemeanor, then the trial court would have had the discretion to order a suspended sentence now, Judge Margret Robb wrote for the majority. However, since that court postponed the reduction, Gardiner still had the Class D felony conviction on her record when she was convicted and sentenced for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, and the trial court couldn't reduce her sentence beyond the statutory minimum.

The split court was sympathetic to the argument that the non-suspension rule under these circumstances doesn't take into account Gardiner's good behavior after she was sentenced and Judge Robb wrote the judges were frustrated by a sentencing scheme "that so illogically limits the judge's discretion." The majority invited the legislature to consider amending the statutes to provide more judicial discretion.

The majority noted this holding only applies when a defendant is initially convicted or pleads guilty and is sentenced to a Class D felony and the conviction is later modified; it does not apply when a defendant is found guilty of a Class D felony but the trial court enters a conviction for a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to I.C. 35-50-2-7(b).

Judge Elaine Brown dissented, writing she wouldn't give the non-suspension rule such a strict interpretation as to tie the trial court's hands in suspending a minimum sentence when circumstances warrant a modification.

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