The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case in which a defendant challenged his sentence following his guilty plea
to Class B felony burglary and admitting to being a habitual offender.
A written plea agreement called for James Walsh to be sentenced to 20 years for the burglary conviction and a consecutive
30 years for the habitual offender determination with 20 years of the sentence suspended to probation. The trial court entered
the habitual-offender enhancement as a separate, consecutive sentence.
The post-conviction court ordered he be re-sentenced to 20 years for the burglary conviction, enhanced by 10 years because
it was an error to impose a separate, consecutive sentence for the habitual-offender enhancement.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a not-for-publication opinion June 24. The trial court was without authority to enter a sentence different than that provided
for in the plea agreement, even if it was to Walsh’s benefit, the appellate court ruled. The judges remanded to correct
the sentence order and abstract of judgment to reflect that the 30-year sentence for the habitual-offender adjudication serves
to enhance the 20-year burglary sentence, with 20 years suspended to probation.
The case is James Walsh v. State of Indiana, No. 52S05-1009-CR-506.
The high court also granted transfer with opinions last week to Max Koenig v. State of Indiana, No. 42S04-1009-CR-505, Virginia Meister v. State of Indiana and Union City, No. 68S04-1009-CV-510, and Rosalynn West v. Betty
Wadlington, et al., No. 49S02-1009-CV-509.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.