ILNews

Judges disagree as how to review sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed today that a defendant's sentence following a guilty plea wasn't inappropriate, but the judges didn't agree as to how to reach that conclusion.

In T. L. Brandon Hollar v. State of Indiana, No. 43A05-0906-CR-319, Judges L. Mark Bailey and Cale Bradford relied on Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), to determine T. L. Brandon Hollar's sentence of three years in prison with two years suspended wasn't inappropriate. Hollar pro se pleaded guilty to Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent child and argued on appeal that he received the maximum sentence despite the two years being suspended to probation. He wanted the Court of Appeals to revise it through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

The split Jenkins court concluded that in analyzing whether a sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B), anything less than a fully executed sentence of the maximum length doesn't constitute a maximum sentence. It also ruled that it's not realistic to consider a year of probation, a year in community corrections, and a year in prison as equivalent.

The majority looked at whether Hollar's sentence was composed of executed imprisonment time, in whole or in part, or included any alternatives to incarceration while performing the 7(B) analysis. It determined based on the nature of the offense and Hollar's character, he hadn't persuaded the appellate court that his sentence was inappropriate.

Judge Nancy Vaidik agreed with the result of the majority's ruling, but believed the court should use a different approach in evaluating sentences. She referred to Mask v. State, 829 N.E.2d 932, 935-36 (Ind. 2005).

"A probationary term poses the very 'real possibility' that a defendant will have to serve his suspended sentence," she wrote. "Whether or not this is within the control of the defendant, I find it unrealistic to ignore the suspended portions of a sentence and review only those portions ordered executed."

Her main concern was if the appellate court declines to review the totality of a potential sentence on direct appeal, the defendant would have no other opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the sentence should probation be revoked. She declined to follow Jenkins and instead would review the entirety of Hollar's suspended and executed sentences for inappropriateness. She also concluded based on his character and the circumstances of the case, his sentence is appropriate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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