« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts one today | Main | Ind. Law - IU-Indianapolis Law reportedly tumbles in U.S.News rankings »

Monday, March 28, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts two today

Damian Harris v. State of Indiana (3/28/05 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Hoffman, Judge

* * * {Issue 4] Whether Harris’ sentence violates his constitutional rights as set forth in Blakely v. Washington. * * *

Further, we conclude that the trial court erred by applying an improper aggravating circumstance in sentencing Harris. Finally, based upon Smylie, we conclude that Blakely does apply to Indiana’s sentencing scheme and that the enhancement of Harris’ sentence cannot be imposed without factual findings by a jury.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part for a new sentencing consistent with this opinion.
BAKER, J., and ROBB, J., concur.

Eli D. Mast v. State of Indiana (3/28/05 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Mathias, Judge
Eli Mast (“Mast”) pled guilty to Class C felony burglary and admitted to being an habitual offender in Allen Superior Court. Mast appeals, raising the following restated issue for review: Whether Mast’s sentence was inappropriate. Concluding Mast’s sentence was appropriate, we affirm. * * *

When a plea explicitly permits the trial court to sentence the defendant within a given range or caps a sentence, Gist and Mann’s implicit waiver provision is entirely logical. However, when the defendant’s plea is open, there is no relevant distinction between a review of a sentence resulting from such a guilty plea and a sentence resulting from a conviction. There is nothing in Mast’s plea agreement that indicates he consented to an inappropriate sentence, and Mast did not otherwise waive his right to challenge his allegedly inappropriate sentencing by pleading guilty. See Appellant’s App. p. 37.

Nonetheless, Mast’s sentence was appropriate. Mast was convicted of a Class C felony, and the maximum sentence he could have received was eight years rather than his six-year sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2004). A single aggravating circumstance is sufficient to justify an enhanced sentence. Powell v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1128, 1135 (Ind. 2002). Mast’s eight prior convictions speak to the nature of Mast’s character, outweigh his mitigating factors, and justify his cumulative sixteen-year sentence.
Affirmed.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs.

BAILEY, J., concurs in result with opinion.
BAILEY, Judge, concurring in result. I agree that Mast’s aggregate sentence of sixteen years is appropriate. However, I disagree with the majority’s criticism of the breadth of the language of Bennett v. State, 813 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). When a defendant accepts an indeterminate sentence, that is, with no set number of years, but is advised of the minimum sentence possible and the maximum sentence possible, the defendant implicitly agrees that his sentence within that range is appropriate. Therefore, I concur in result.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 28, 2005 02:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions