ILNews

Supreme Court analyzes appellate review rule on sentences

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Addressing an issue that’s divided the state’s intermediate appeals judges, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that review under Appellate Rule 7 may include consideration of a person’s total penal consequences within a trial court sentence.

Justices ruled today on Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1001-CR-41, which involves a defendant convicted of auto theft and resisting law enforcement. Desmond Davidson received an aggregate sentence of 545 days, and Marion Superior Judge James Osborn ordered that 180 days be executed and 365 days be suspended to probation. Davidson appealed and said the total advisory sentence was inappropriate.

Although the Court of Appeals affirmed last year, the panel disagreed about whether it should review “his partially-suspended advisory sentence the same as if it were a fully-executed advisory sentence.” The judges relied on caselaw from the past several years discussing the issue and the majority favored consideration of the fact that a portion of the sentence was suspended. Justices granted transfer to consider the issue.

The court noted that Indiana’s Constitution expressively provides for appellate power to “review and revise the sentence imposed,” and that in line with that provision Indiana Appellate Rule 7 authorizes a criminal defendant to appeal a sentence and allows that the reviewing court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Trial judges have many options to consider in imposing a sentence, the justices found.

The Court of Appeals was correct in this case, and the justices disapprove of the contrary views expressed in Eaton v. State, 825 N.E. 2d 1287, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Pagan v. State, 809 N.E. 2d 915, 926, n.9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); and Cox v. State, 792 N.E. 2d 898, 904 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

“We decline to narrowly interpret the word ‘sentence’ in Appellate Rule 7 to constrict appellate courts to consider only the appropriateness of the aggregate length of the sentence without considering also whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial judge,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote. “This does not preclude a reviewing court from determining a sentence to be inappropriate due to its overall sentence length despite the suspension of a substantial portion thereof. A defendant on probation is subject to the revocation of probation and may be required to serve up to the full original sentence.”
 

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT