ILNews

Trial court couldn't modify man's sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding the addition of the term "imposed" to an amendment of Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(a) in 2005 to be critical in a man's appeal of his sentence, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of his motion to modify his second sentence.

Dale Redmond was convicted of various burglary, robbery, and battery charges in 1998 and sentenced to serve 20 years for robbery and two battery convictions and then eight years for his last county of battery. That sentence was ordered be served consecutively to the robbery sentence.

In February 2008, Redmond filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(a), stating he had just begun serving his eight-year sentence for battery and was within the one-year period in which to file a statutory motion to modify without the approval of a prosecutor. The trial court denied his motion, ruling it was without authority to modify his sentence.

In Dale Redmond v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0808-CR-761, the Court of Appeals examined the statute at issue in the case as well as Liggin v. State, 665 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), which Redmond used to support his motion.

At the time Liggin was decided, the statute didn't mention the imposition of a sentence, only that a court may modify a sentence after a defendant begins serving his sentence. Based on the statute at the time, the Court of Appeals held Liggin hadn't yet begun serving his second sentence at the time the trial court purported to modify it, so it was without authority to do so.

Since Liggin, the statute has been amended to allow a defendant 365 days after he begins serving his sentence to file a motion to modify, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

"We find the amendment of Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17(a) in 2005 to include the term 'imposed' to be critical," she wrote.

The triggering date is the date the trial court imposes the sentences and reading the statute that way furthers the state's legitimate interest in the finality of the judgments and an ordered procedure for the modification of sentences.

"Allowing a defendant to file a motion to modify a sentence each time he begins a new sentence is inconsistent with the legislature's 2005 amendment of the statute to add back in the term 'imposed,' which denotes a one-time event, and would give the defendant several attempts to modify his sentence, thereby defeating finality," the judge wrote.

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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT