ILNews

Judges find enhancement doesn't violate double jeopardy principles

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals tackled an issue of first impression in a case involving double jeopardy principles. A defendant’s sentence was enhanced under the Firearm Enhancement Statute following a conviction for reckless homicide.

In John G. Cooper v. State of Indiana, No. 32A05-1005-CR-309, John Cooper challenged his aggregate 13-year sentence for reckless homicide, which included a five-year enhancement under the Firearm Enhancement Statute. Cooper was convicted of Class C felony reckless homicide and the jury determined the state proved the firearm enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. He claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement and that double jeopardy principles bar the enhancement because the conviction and enhancement were based on the single act of killing Michael Gelinas with a firearm.

Cooper suspected his wife was having an affair with Gelinas and purchased a shotgun and shells several days before confronting Gelinas at his home. An altercation ensued and Gelinas was shot and killed while he and Cooper wrestled. Cooper claimed he went to the home just to scare Gelinas.

The appellate judges affirmed there was sufficient evidence to support the enhancement, finding the state was able to prove Cooper knowingly or intentionally used a firearm to commit a reckless act.

In addressing the double jeopardy issue, the judges had to look to other jurisdictions for guidance because no Indiana court has squarely addressed this issue. Several of those jurisdictions have concluded that firearm sentencing enhancements similar to Indiana’s don’t raise double jeopardy concerns because the enhancement is merely a cumulative punishment rather than a separate offense, wrote Judge John Baker.

“We agree with those jurisdictions recognizing that sentencing enhancements are not offenses for double jeopardy purposes in circumstances such as the one before us. Indeed, the Firearm Enhancement Statute only prescribes an additional penalty for felonies that are committed with the use of a firearm,” he wrote.

Judge Baker also pointed to Joshua Nicoson v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1003-CR-150, in which a split Indiana Supreme Court recently held that state statute says that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence enhancement and doesn’t violate double jeopardy. Joshua Nicoson received a five-year sentence enhancement on one of his convictions of confinement with a deadly weapon.

“Again, Cooper was convicted of a single offense, for which the legislature has specifically provided a harsher penalty based on the use of a firearm. And even though the jury relied upon Cooper’s use of the shotgun for both the underlying offense and the enhancement, the legislature’s intent is clear that criminal offenses committed with firearms are to receive additional punishment,” he wrote.

The judges also affirmed Cooper’s aggregate 13-year sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS
    If he received punisment for a single crime and additional punishment (enhancement) for the same single crime, that certainly is double jeopardy. The courts can use any and all of the ambiguous language they choose to try to make their illegal, unconstitutional BS appear to be correct, when anyone but a lunatic knows better!
  • Law,
    This is baloney, however the courts have opened pandora's box, if they can use law from other jurisdictions so can defendants!
  • bullets?
    "Cooper . . . purchased a shotgun and bullets."
    Actually, he purchased a shotgun and shells. Bullets are not compatible with a shotgun. A shotgun fires shells, birdshot or buckshot, or slugs.

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT