Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 4 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (1):
In Edgardo A. Henriquez v. State of Indiana , a 7-page, 2-1 opinion, Chief Judge Vaidik writes [ILB emphasis]:
Edgardo Henriquez was convicted of Class A felony child molesting and sentenced to forty years, with ten years suspended to probation. Henriquez appeals, arguing that the trial court was required to advise him of his earliest and latest possible release dates pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-1(b) but failed to do so. Because trial courts are not equipped to determine these dates and Henriquez has not shown that he was harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates, we affirm. We also urge the legislature to revisit Indiana Code section 35-38-1-1(b), which imposes an impracticable burden on our trial courts.NFP civil decisions today (0):
* * *
Najam, J., concurs.
Baker, J., dissents with separate opinion. [which begins, at p. 6] Although I fully agree with almost all of the majority’s analysis, I respectfully part ways with its final two paragraphs and dissent from the result it reaches. The plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant being sentenced “that the person is sentenced for not less than the earliest release date and for not more than the maximum possible release date.” This language is not ambiguous. It may be true, as the majority opines, that this task “would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible,” for trial courts to accomplish. Slip op. p. 4. Nonetheless, our General Assembly has mandated this action, and it is not within our purview to exempt trial courts from a mandatory statute simply because it may be difficult to comply with its requirements. * * *
The mere fact that a statutory requirement is difficult to fulfill cannot possibly mean that it can be ignored altogether.
Therefore, I would remand this cause to the trial court so that it can include the statutorily required advisement in a new sentencing order. I agree with my colleagues that this lapse provides no relief for this defendant.
NFP criminal decisions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 9, 2016 11:18 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions