The Edinburgh Courier (Johnson County) has a story today on the Court of Appeals decision last week in Kelli Jo Trusley v. State of Indiana (11/24/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure] (access the ILB entry here). That 2-1 decision concluded:
CONCLUSION. Trusley’s sentence was enhanced because of aggravating factors other than criminal history, which aggravating factors were not found by a jury or admitted by Trusley. We accordingly remand for resentencing.Some quotes from the story today, by reporter Michael W. Hoskins:
A Greenwood baby sitter convicted of reckless homicide believes a jury, not a judge, should have decided whether to extend her prison sentence.Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 30, 2004 02:07 PMIndiana’s Court of Appeals agreed and has ordered a Johnson County judge to take another look at the sentence handed down in January to Kelli Jo Trusley. * * *
She pleaded guilty to a Class C felony of reckless homicide and faced between two and eight years in prison. Johnson County Superior Court 2 Judge Cynthia Emkes added two years in prison and two on probation to the standard four-year penalty.
Trusley asked the appellate court to review the sentence, arguing that a jury should have been asked to review factors that extended her sentence.
Two of the three appellate judges agreed Wednesday that Trusley’s sentence should not have been modified by Emkes without review by a jury.
Johnson County Prosecutor Lance Hamner said his office will ask the attorney general’s office to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. * * *
The appellate court based its decision on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling* that came down in June, six months after Trusley was sentenced in Johnson County.
This is the first Indiana case to have a decision reversed based on the national ruling, which prevents judges from unilaterally extending sentences before a jury can determine whether certain factors warrant that action.
Even though state law permits the judge to increase the sentence for certain reasons, the nation’s high court said such decisions require additional fact-finding that the Constitution reserves for juries, not judges.
Two of the appellate judges agreed, but Judge Nancy Vaidik disagreed and reinforced her support of Emkes’ decision. * * *
____
*Blakely v. Washington