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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT