Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court next week will hear oral arguments in cases alleging double jeopardy and questioning whether a defendant has a right to appeal her sentence just because a judge erroneously advised the defendant that she could.
Arguments will be held June 18 in the high court’s courtroom at the Statehouse and will be streamed online.
At 9 a.m., the court will hear the case of Marvin Moyers v. State of Indiana, 24A-CR-939. Moyers was found guilty by a jury of several counts of burglary, battery, and criminal confinement after he beat a man and restrained him while stealing items from his garage in Ohio County in July 2022.
The Ohio Circuit Court merged Moyers’ convictions, handing down a sentence of 100 years.
However, Moyers argues that his convictions for level 3 felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and level 4 felony criminal confinement resulting in moderate bodily injury violate the state’s double jeopardy laws.
Moyers appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ultimately affirmed the trial court’s sentence of 100 years and determined that no double-jeopardy violation occurred because each the two offenses required different behavior by the defendant and therefore were not the same crime.
One crime involved being armed with a deadly weapon. The other involved moderate bodily injury.
Moyers now appeals to the state’s high court for jurisdiction over his case.
At 10 a.m., the supreme court will hear arguments over Kimberly R. Anderson v. State of Indiana, No. 24A-CR-1358. In April 2024, Anderson pleaded guilty to domestic battery with a deadly weapon and intimidation as part of a plea agreement. In accepting the plea agreement, Anderson also agreed to waive her right to appeal her sentence.
However, after she was sentenced, the Marion Superior Court erroneously advised Anderson that she had a right to appeal her sentence. She did so in June 2024.
In her appeal, Anderson argued that the trial court considered improper aggravators when determining her sentence, making it a procedural error.
The state filed a motion to dismiss Anderson’s appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
Anderson now appeals to the state supreme court to assume jurisdiction over her appeal.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.