ILNews

Judges uphold man's convictions, enhanced sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of and sentence for a man on multiple drug charges, finding that the Lake Superior judge didn’t err by enhancing the man’s sentence because he is a habitual offender.

In Christopher A. Bryant v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-1101-CR-11, the appellate court upheld decisions by Lake Superior Judge Thomas Stefaniak after Christopher Bryant challenged his convictions and sentence. The judge sentenced Bryant to 42 years on each of the two convictions of Class A felony dealing a narcotic drug, one year on the Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and one year on the Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession; as well as a three-year enhancement resulting from Bryant’s admission of being a habitual substance offender.

On appeal, Bryant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer’s failure to challenge a strip search at a police station in Hammond and suppress the findings. The appellate court found no case holding that the arrest of a suspected felon doesn’t justify a strip search, and the judges determined that even if police had not suspected Bryant of committing a major felony there was still reasonable suspicion that he was concealing contraband.

Bryant also argued the trial judge should have granted a mistrial because of police testimony allowed concerning the strip search, but the appellate court found that he wasn’t placed in danger by the comments admitted at trial and no harm was evident.

The appellate court also denied Bryant’s argument that the trial judge improperly sentenced him using aggravating factors and not finding mitigators. The Court of Appeals found that even if the trial judge erred by not including an adequate sentencing statement as required by caselaw, Bryant’s extensive criminal history rendered any error harmless because the man likely would have received the same enhanced sentence.

 

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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT