ILNews

Supreme Court knocks down habitual-offender enhancement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court found a habitual-offender enhancement tacked onto the 20-year sentence of a serious violent felon was an “impermissible double enhancement.”

Anthony H. Dye was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and found to be a habitual offender after a shootout at a music studio in Elkhart on March 18, 2007. During the incident, Dye was shot twice and his 20-year-old son, Jermaine Jackson, was killed.

The state subsequently charged Dye in Elkhart Superior Court with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF.

In addition, the state sought to have Dye’s sentence enhanced under the habitual-offender statute which provides that the sentence of a person convicted of a felony can be enhanced up to 30 years if he or she previously has been convicted of two unrelated felonies. To prove Dye’s habitual-offender status, the state used a 1998 conviction for possession of a handgun within 1,000 feet of a school and a 1993 forgery conviction.

Dye pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF. However, he filed a motion to dismiss the habitual-offender allegation, arguing that enhancing his sentence under the habitual-offender statute would constitute an impermissible double enhancement.

Denying the motion, the trial court moved forward with a jury trial on the habitual-offender allegation. After a two-day trial, the jury found that Dye was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum 20 years imprisonment on the SVF conviction, enhanced by 30 years due to his status as a habitual offender. Then the court suspended 15 years to probation, for an executed term of 35 years.

The Supreme Court found Dye’s habitual-offender enhancement violated the rule against double enhancements for two reasons. First, the SVF statute Dye was convicted under is a progressive-penalty statute. Second, the general habitual-offender statute does not include “explicit legislative direction indicating that a double enhancement is proper here.”   

Finding that the trial court erred in denying Dye’s motion, the Supreme Court vacated the 30-year enhancement. Also, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an executed term of 20 years imprisonment is not inappropriate. It remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order sentencing Dye to an executed term of 20 years.

Justice Mark Massa dissented, writing, "The courts of this state communicated to the General Assembly what was, and was not, permissible with respect to double enhancements. Several times, the General Assembly has responded. I believe their 2001 response amending the habitual offender statute shows first that the SVF statute is not a progressive penalty statute, and second that, even if the SVF statute were still subject to the general rule against double enhancement, there is explicit legislative direction permitting an adjudicated serious violent felon to be subject to additional enhancement under the general habitual offender statute."



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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT