ILNews

Justices take case arguing retroactivity for revised criminal code

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A man convicted of cocaine charges as a Class A felony and ultimately sentenced to 38 years in prison will get to argue to the Indiana Supreme Court that his punishment is disproportionate to the reduced offense that will take effect in July as part of Indiana’s revised criminal code.

Justices granted transfer in the Shelby County case, Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana, 73S01-1401-CR-29. The revised criminal code, enacted in 2013 via House Enrolled Act 1006, removes cocaine possession and dealing charges from the category of crime with the highest sentencing range.

The Court of Appeals rejected Cross’ argument, holding that nothing in HEA 1006 suggests that the criminal code revision should be applied retroactively.

Justices also agreed to hear Nick McIlquham v. State of Indiana, 49S05-1401-CR-28, a Fourth Amendment case. McIlquham challenges his conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony neglect of a dependent and misdemeanor marijuana counts, arguing the results of a search should have been excluded at trial.

Police conducted a warrantless search of McIlquham’s apartment because of concerns about the welfare of his young, partially nude daughter found wandering alone near a retention pond. The search turned up a loaded pistol and marijuana, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, holding the search was objectively reasonable under the circumstances as part of police community-caretaking duties.  

The Supreme Court also will hear a not-for-publication opinion involving a biological mother’s denial of a motion for relief from an adoption judgment. That case is In the Matter of the Adoption of C.A.H., minor, J.N.E. v. L.M.H., 49S02-1401-AD-30.

Justices also declined to grant transfer in 22 cases. Weekly transfer disposition reports may be viewed here.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT