Shorter and not so sweet?

June 17, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Short and straight to the point. That describes a not-for-publication opinion from the Court of Appeals Monday, in Evan Erby v. State of Indiana, No. 18A02-0711-CR-977. Two sentences sum up this case, referring to an Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year about sentencing in a post-Blakely world. This time, Erby challenged a 10-year sentence for armed robbery, and the COA panel noted that the justices specifically rejected a similar argument in Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), in holding that trial courts no longer have to “properly weigh” aggravators and mitigators in sentencing.

While this may not be unique in that it’s the shortest opinion ever, it’s the shortest we can recall seeing in awhile. Sure, it’s an NFP and isn’t citable or precedent-setting. Maybe this shortness also signals a trend we’ll be seeing more at our intermediate appellate court, where caseloads continue increasing to the tune of an expected 3,100-plus opinions by the end of the year – an average of about 2.2 opinions per judge per day. That means less time and less review for each case, though not necessarily less quality. While it may not be evident here, some could probably raise the quantity vs. quality argument when pondering the increasing workload. We have a story in our latest issue of Indiana Lawyer about how the COA focused in 2007 on improving efficiency in the wake of higher caseloads. Will this be used as ammunition in the case for a new sixth appellate panel, which has been discussed for some time and is being explored by an interim legislative study committee?

A recent post on the Carroll County Courts blog noted the consequences of budgetary problems and how a judge might feel without adequate staff. We wondered if this is how the Court of Appeals and other judges feel about their increasing caseloads. Take a look. (http://carrollcountycourts.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-happens-when-you-cant-keep-up.html)
ADVERTISEMENT
  • A fuller explanation of the reasons for the 1-page opinion is not hard to find. A recent opinion HIGHLY critical of the same public defender in another appeal shows the reason. See State v. Matthew Johnson, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05290802mgr.pdf.
    Although the opinions contains other critical comments as well, the following footnote best illustrates why the court gave such short shrift to this PD\'s argument in the 1 paragraph opinion.

    5. We note that this court has found it necessary on several previous occasions to remind Johnson’s counsel that arguments must be supported by cogent argument and applicable authority. See Tamsett v. State, 879 N.E.2d 1231, 2008 WL 204698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (noting that counsel cited an outdated version of Rule 7(B)); Gray v. State, 876 N.E.2d 387, 2007 WL 3244230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unpublished opinion) (noting that counsel cited an outdated version of Rule 7(B), and “caution[ing] counsel to conduct a more thorough legal research process in the future”); Stanley v. State, 874 N.E.2d 650, 2007 WL 2916451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unpublished opinion) (holding issue waived based on failure to make a cogent argument or cite to relevant authority); Ruble v. State, 873 N.E.2d 202, 2007 WL 2473232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unpublished opinion) (indicating that counsel “misstates the issue,” and cites authorities that are “either obsolete, inapplicable, repealed or replaced by other authorities,” and declining to address the merits based on counsel’s failure to make cogent argument); Sharp v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding argument waived based on failure to make cogent argument). We urge counsel to perform adequate research and put forth cogent arguments for his clients, who have a constitutional right to effective assistance of appellate counsel.

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
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT