ILNews

Judges examine double jeopardy issues in child support case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found a man’s three convictions on non-payment of child support for his three children don't violate double jeopardy principles, even though that issue is currently pending in another case before the Indiana Supreme Court.

In Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, the appellate court affirmed and reversed in part a case involving a northern Indiana man’s nonpayment of child support for his three children.

The non-support stems back to child support payments that Sickel didn’t make between 1997 and 1999, involving three children he and his wife had before their divorce in 1992. He lived out of state and the wife and children remained in Goshen, and Sickel was ordered to pay $118 in child support each week by a civil support order. But he didn’t pay that amount and was charged with three felony counts of non-payment in September 2001, each count alleging he accumulated an arrearage in excess of $15,000 per child.

Sickels was arrested in Michigan first in 2002 and three more times through the years, but released after Michigan authorities either didn’t notify Indiana about the arrest or he wasn’t extradited. Eventually, Sickels was brought back to Indiana in July 2010 on the felony non-support charges, and he was convicted at a bench trial, sentenced and ordered to pay more than $80,000 in unpaid support.

On appeal, Sickels argues that his conviction on three counts of non-payment involving one civil support order is a double jeopardy violation. The appellate court pointed out that Sickels is subject to the child support non-payment laws in place in the late 1990s, requiring a per-dependent arrearage of at least $10,000 to support each alleged Class C felony. Although this is an issue in a related child support payment and double jeopardy case currently before the Indiana Supreme Court in Sanjari v. State, 942 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), the Court of Appeals panel concluded that in the context of double jeopardy Sickels’ three convictions do not violate the same elements test of the U.S. Constitution or the Indiana Constitution’s statutory elements test.

The court affirmed Sickels’ convictions and part of his sentence, but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to clarify the restitution order because it is inconsistent with what was said at the sentencing hearing.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT