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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT