« Ind. Law - "Hoosier laws limit physician assistants" | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: Columnist writes Lake County has too many courts »

Monday, November 13, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today

For publication opinions today (2):

In Richard Brown v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion on rehearing, Judge Crone writes:

Brown petitions for rehearing solely on our decision not to address his constitutional proportionality claim, arguing that it has been fully raised before the trial court as well as this Court and that addressing it would serve the interests of judicial economy. We agree and now grant rehearing in this case for the limited purpose of responding to Brown’s argument that the penalty for identity deception is unconstitutionally disproportionate as compared with the penalty for impersonation of a public servant. We affirm our previous opinion in all other respects. * * *

We conclude that the penalty for identity deception is not so severe or entirely out of proportion so as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of a reasonable people. See Pritscher, 675 N.E.2d at 731. Thus, the penalty for identity deception is not unconstitutionally disproportionate as compared with the penalty for impersonation of a public servant.

In John A. McMahon v. State of Indiana , a 15-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
John McMahon appeals his seven-and-one-half-year sentence for intimidation, criminal recklessness, and resisting law enforcement. He contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Because McMahon committed his offenses on July 21, 2005, he was sentenced under Indiana’s new advisory sentencing scheme, which went into effect on April 25, 2005. Under this new scheme, trial courts are free to impose any sentence authorized by statute regardless of the presence or absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Our task is to determine the role of Indiana’s appellate courts under a system that gives unlimited discretion to trial court judges. We conclude that reviewing aggravating and mitigating circumstances along with other relevant factors is consistent with our constitutional review under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Applying this review to the facts of this case, we cannot say that McMahon’s sentence is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

Conclusion In light of the changes our General Assembly made to Indiana’s sentencing statutes in 2005, we review sentences under a single standard, established by Appellate Rule 7(B): whether the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, taking into consideration, among other factors, the relevant circumstances found in Indiana Code § 35-38-1-7.1. Applying this standard to McMahon’s case, we cannot say that his sentence is inappropriate.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions