ILNews

Justices divided on firearm 'use' sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Supreme Court has held that state statute dictates that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence enhancement that doesn’t constitute a double jeopardy violation.

In its eight-page decision today in Joshua G. Nicoson v. State of Indiana , No. 32S04-1003-CR-150, three of the justices held that a five-year sentence enhancement on a Hendricks County case is consistent with state statutes and the prohibition against double jeopardy.

The case involves a 27-year old man who confronted a friend’s boyfriend with a gun to help her end a relationship with him. The 17-year old boyfriend and three others arrived in a car and saw Nicoson pointing a gun in the air.

Nicoson went to a gas station and pointed a gun in the air, firing a warning shot, then held the 17-year old boyfriend and a passenger. He also pointed the gun at the boyfriend and a passenger, ordered the people at gunpoint to lie on the ground, and then fired at the car when they escaped. After a bench trial, the court found Nicoson guilty on two Class B felony counts of confinement with a deadly weapon and other felony counts of pointing a firearm. The judge added five years to one of the confinement convictions for the use of the firearm during the offense – specifically pointing out how Nicoson had held the gun to the boyfriend’s head while he was facedown on the ground.

The Court of Appeals tackled this issue of first impression in January, but came out divided in its holding that someone armed with a deadly weapon is the basis for a confinement enhancement associated with that specific Class B felony, and that the additional five-year enhancement was a separate issue going to the punishment for a person’s actual use of the deadly weapon.

A majority of the justices agreed, analyzing Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-11 that allows a judge to enhance a person's sentence to an additional fixed term of five years if the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person "used" a firearm in the commission of the offense.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote the majority opinion, citing caselaw that finds the double jeopardy constitutional principle is aimed at multiple convictions while multiple sentencing enhancements turn on statutory interpretation. Since this five-year enhancement is not part of the criminal confinement provisions that Nicoson was charged with but falls under the penalty codes within state statute, it doesn’t interfere, the chief justice wrote.

“In effect, Nicoson is contending that the State proved too much too soon,” he wrote. “He had to mean that the legislative design seeks to impose greater penalty on a perpetuator who brings a gun to the scene of the crime and eventually pulls it out and aims it, but a lesser penalty for a perpetuator who discharges the weapon as a warning, aims it at other human beings, and brandishes it throughout the whole encounter. It cannot be so. The legislative direction in the language of the statutes is explicit. The enumeration of criminal confinement in the ‘firearm use statute’ is authorization by the General Assembly for this type of enhancement.”

Justices Steven David and Brent Dickson joined the chief justice in the majority, but Justices Robert Rucker and Frank Sullivan dissented. Though they agreed with the majority’s general observation about conviction versus penalty analysis, they determined that the facts here showed no distinction between Nicoson’s being “armed” and his “use” of the firearm. That warrants a reversal and remand to the trial court, they wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Multiple Enhancements
    I believe that the issue here is that Nicoson was convicted of Criminal Confinement with a Deadly Weapon and then had a weapons ehancement added on. Criminal Confinement is a D felony which is enhanced to a B felony when a firearm is used. To add a further enhancement to an already enhanced sentence is blatantly unconstitutional under US Law. In Indiana, however, the General Assembly allows this double enhancement. Hopefully the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission will retract this error. This is clearly double sentencing and therefore double jeopardy.
  • Incorrect
    The facts about Joshua Nicoson's case are not recorded accurately here. The five men came to Joshua's home to confront him over an earlier phone call -- Josh did not fire a gun at a gas station, as reported here. He was on his own property. Further, none of the victims ever testified that Josh pointed a gun at his head, only the trial judge made that declaration. Unfortunately, this is not a case of shoddy reporting by this website -- all of these inaccuracies were presented in the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court cases. It's too bad that the true facts of the case never had the chance to come out.

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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT