« Courts - More today on Illinois Supreme Court politics | Main | Not law, but very irritating! [Updated] »

Friday, April 07, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues one today

In Marvin Reffett v. State of Indiana, a 5-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

Marvin Reffett pled guilty to operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension as a Class C felony, operating while intoxicated (“OWI”) as a Class D felony, and to being an habitual substance offender. The trial court sentenced Reffett to an enhanced sentence of three years for his OWI conviction and an enhanced sentence of eight years for his operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension conviction. These sentences were to be served concurrently. The trial court sentenced Reffett to five years with two years suspended to probation for being an habitual substance offender. This sentence was to be served consecutively with his other sentences for an aggregate executed sentence of eleven years. Reffett now appeals his sentence. We reverse and remand.

Reffett argues that his sentence is inappropriate. However, we find the following issue, which we raise sua sponte, to be dispositive: whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is authorized by statute. * * *

Here, the trial court considered Reffett’s habitual substance offender finding to be a separate crime and imposed a separate sentence for that finding, rather than enhancing the sentence for Reffett’s substance offense conviction. Pursuant to Greer, this was erroneous.

In addition, where a criminal defendant receives an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute, such sentence may not be suspended. * * * Therefore, the trial court also erred where it suspended two years of the five-year habitual substance offender enhancement it imposed. Because of the errors in the trial court’s sentencing of Reffett, we are compelled to reverse the sentence and remand this case for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.

Conclusion. The trial court improperly sentenced Reffett because it imposed a separate sentence upon the habitual substance offender finding and suspended part of the enhancement. Reffett’s sentence is therefore reversed, and we remand the case to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 7, 2006 10:06 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions