ILNews

Prosecutor’s lack of objection allows judge to modify sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case where a woman sought modification of her sentence more than a year after it was imposed, the Indiana Supreme Court found that the prosecutor’s conduct satisfied the “approval” requirement of Indiana Code 35-38-1-17(b).

Tammy Sue Harper was sentenced Sept. 19, 2011; she filed her motion for sentence modification Dec. 5, 2012. The trial court at a hearing acknowledged it lacked authority under the statute to modify the sentence but Tippecanoe Circuit Judge Donald Daniel indicated his desire to do so unless the prosecutor’s office objected to the modification and planned to appeal. The deputy prosecutor told the judge he would discuss the matter with the prosecutor’s office, but five weeks had passed and the prosecutor’s office never objected to the modification that would release Harper from the Department of Correction and have her serve the rest of her sentence on probation.

Daniel granted Harper’s motion, leading to this appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the justices affirmed the modification.

The statute in effect at the time of Harper’s offense provided that after 365 days have elapsed, any modification by the trial court is subject to the approval of the prosecuting attorney.

The deputy prosecutor participated in the hearing on the sentence modification request and was aware the trial court wanted to grant the modification unless the prosecutor objected. But the prosecutor never objected or notified the court it planned on appealing if the judge granted the modification.  

“… we conclude that in the context of the facts of this case, the prosecutor’s conduct and communications adequately conveyed the ‘approval of the prosecuting attorney’ required in Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(b), and that the trial court did not err in proceeding to grant the defendant’s motion for sentence modification,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the unanimous court in State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper, 79S02-1405-CR-334.  

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT