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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT