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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues