ILNews

Justices to take up partial consecutive sentence case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Whether state law allows a criminal defendant to receive a partial consecutive sentence may be determined by the Indiana Supreme Court, which agreed to hear a case successfully argued by a pro se litigant to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Justices agreed to hear Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana, 27S02-1309-CR-584, in which the defendant was convicted of Class A felony charges of rape and criminal deviate conduct and Class B felony robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate executed prison term of 50 years – concurrent 45-year terms for the Class A felonies, plus 20 years for the Class B felony, with five years of that sentence to be served consecutive to the 45-year term.

A divided appeals panel affirmed the sentence from Grant Circuit Court. The majority found the sentence was not erroneous on its face, but Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented, finding partial consecutive sentences are not explicitly allowed by statute.

Justices added three more cases to the docket last week:

State of Indiana v. I.T., 20S03-1309-JV-583, an Elkhart County case in which the Court of Appeals determined the state has no authority to appeal a juvenile court’s decision to rescind an order approving the filing of a delinquency petition against a teen accused of molesting two children.

In the Matter of: S.D. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and J.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 49S05-1309-JC-585, a not-for-publication Marion Superior ruling in which an appeals panel unanimously affirmed a CHINS determination in which the mother challenged sufficiency of evidence and whether the court properly ordered her to participate in home-based counseling.

Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile v. State of Indiana, 58A01-1205-CR-215, affirming an Ohio Circuit conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily over arguments that the would-be victim was not harmed.

All the cases the justices accepted for the week ending Sept. 6 were granted transfer unanimously. The court rejected 21 appeals. Transfer disposition lists 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT