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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT