ILNews

Single larceny rule doesn't apply in case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a man's petition for post-conviction relief, finding the defendant's trial counsel wasn't ineffective for arguing a single larceny rule defense because it wasn't applicable in this case.

In Lucius Walker v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0809-PC-452, Lucius Walker argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue his Class A felony robbery and Class B felony robbery convictions violated the single larceny rule. Walker and another man entered a gas station with a Wendy's restaurant inside and Walker robbed the Wendy's at the same time the other man robbed the gas station. Walker was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate 65-year sentence.

In his petition for post-conviction relief, Walker argues his trial counsel should have raised the single larceny rule because the gas station and the Wendy's were owned by the same corporation. The post-conviction court denied his petition.

The appellate court disagreed with his argument that because he and his accomplice robbed the gas station and Wendy's at the same time and the money belonged to the same corporation, only one robbery occurred. Walker relied on Williams v. State, 395 N.E.2d 239, 248 (Ind. 1979), and Lane v. State, 428 N.E.2d 28, 29 (Ind. 1981), but those cases dealt with the robbery of multiple tellers within a bank.

Walker and his accomplice didn't take money from the same place and the fact that both businesses are owned by the same corporation is unavailing, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. In fact, under Walker's interpretation of the single larceny rule, if two people agree to rob at the same time two separate restaurants owned by the same company, the individuals would only be guilty of one robbery.

The single larceny rule is inapplicable under the facts of this case and Walker's trial counsel wouldn't have succeeded in arguing Walker and his accomplice only committed one robbery, the judge wrote. Walker didn't establish his trial counsel was ineffective and the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed.

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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT