ILNews

High court takes sentence-review case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state's highest court has decided to take a case in which a defendant questioned whether the appellate review of a sentence should consider the suspended portion of a sentence as qualitatively different from the executed portion when determining if a sentence is inappropriate.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1001-CR-41, in which Desmond Davidson appealed his advisory 545-day sentence -180 days executed and 365 days suspended to probation.

The Court of Appeals has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement on this issue: some judges believed suspended sentences ought to be treated no differently from executed sentences for purposes of appellate review. Others believed a sentence is not a "maximum" one, even if it equals the maximum time allowed by statute if part of that time is suspended.

In Davidson, the Court of Appeals held that in the appellate review of sentencing decisions, the court wouldn't just look at the number of years of the sentence but would look at the total sentence imposed. The appellate court upheld Davidson's sentence.

Judge Michael Barnes concurred in result in a separate opinion because he believed the majority opinion and Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1085-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), which the majority opinion relied on, are inconsistent with Mask v. State, 829 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. 2005). Jenkins held that a maximum sentence is not just a sentence of maximum length but a fully executed sentence of maximum length.

Judge Barnes wrote he would review Davidson's sentence as the 545-day sentence because it's his one chance for full appellate review of the 545-day sentence. He also wrote the trial court didn't abuse its discretion in sentencing him.

The justices denied transfer to Jenkins in October.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT