Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2014And when a trial court is ordered to resentence a defendant, it cannot impose a more severe penalty than originally imposed “unless the court includes in the record of the sentencing hearing a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes which includes reliance upon identifiable conduct on the part of the petitioner that occurred after the imposition of the original sentence.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule l(10)(b); Hicks v. State, 729 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2000) (affirming resentencing to forty years for murder plus twenty-year enhancement, when original sentence of 2005We cannot agree. "[Ujpon resentencing a defendant, a sentencing court cannot 'impose a more severe penalty than that originally imposed unless the court includes in the record of the sentencing hearing a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes which includes reliance upon identifiable conduct on the part of the petitioner that occurred after the imposition of the original sentence."" Hicks v. State, 729 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2000) (quoting Ind. Post-Conviection Rule 1(10)(b)). | 4 | 4 |
Gootee v. Stategreen1 sentence2014This Court has stated that “[u]pon resentencing a defendant, a court cannot impose a more severe penalty than that originally imposed unless the court includes in the record of the sentencing hearing a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes . . . .” Gootee v. State, 942 N.E.2d 111, 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Stategreen1 sentence2013For the purposes of Post-Conviction Rule 1(10)(b), the phrase “more severe penalty” refers to “the aggregate sentence, not its component parts.” Gray v. State, 871 N.E.2d 408, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina v. Pearcered2 sentences1987Section 10 was later amended to allow a court to impose a more severe sentence when "the court includes in the record of the sentencing hearing a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes which includes reliance upon identifiable conduct on the part of the petitioner that occurred after the imposition of the original sentence_” See generally, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2081 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 670 (1969) (whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for doing so must affirmative 1987Section 10 was later amended to allow a court to impose a more severe sentence when "the court includes in the record of the sentencing hearing a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes which includes reliance upon identifiable conduct on the part of the petitioner that occurred after the imposition of the original sentence_” See generally, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2081 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 670 (1969) (whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for doing so must affirmative | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frappier v. State
green
2 sentences1990In Frappier, supra, this Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court and noted IC 85-4.1-4-3 (now codified at IC 85-38-1-8) requires the trial court to make a record of the sentencing hearing and to make "a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence it imposes." Frappier, 448 N.E.2d at 1189 . 1990In Frappier, supra, this Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court and noted IC 85-4.1-4-3 (now codified at IC 85-38-1-8) requires the trial court to make a record of the sentencing hearing and to make "a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence it imposes." Frappier, 448 N.E.2d at 1189 . | 2 | 1986–1990 |
Judy v. State
green
2 sentences1986In 1981, we were faced with a death penalty case in Judy v. State, (1981), 275 Ind. 145 , 416 N.E.2d 95 , in which we found that the statement of reasons to be given by the trial court, pursuant to statutory enactment of the Legislature, meant that that statement must be in writing as a part of the sentencing order. 1986In 1981, we were faced with a death penalty case in Judy v. State, (1981), 275 Ind. 145 , 416 N.E.2d 95 , in which we found that the statement of reasons to be given by the trial court, pursuant to statutory enactment of the Legislature, meant that that statement must be in writing as a part of the sentencing order. | 2 | 1984–1986 |
Page v. State
green
2 sentences1986Citing Page, 274 Ind. at 269 , 410 N.E.2d at 1308 . 1986Citing Page, 274 Ind. at 269 , 410 N.E.2d at 1308 . | 2 | 1983–1986 |
Banks v. State
green
1 sentence2011In Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), this court was asked to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion by imposing $200 in public defender fees without finding Banks had the ability to pay. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Reeves v. State
green
1 sentence2010Kistler relies upon Reeves v. State, 564 N.E.2d 550 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Coates v. State
green
2 sentences1989Coates v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 1087 . 1989Coates v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 1087 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ballard v. State
green
2 sentences1988Tolson v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 454 . [2] We note that in Ballard v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 482 , 318 N.E.2d 798 , the Court found a violation of Section 10 and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 1988Tolson v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 454 . [2] We note that in Ballard v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 482 , 318 N.E.2d 798 , the Court found a violation of Section 10 and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tolson v. State
green
2 sentences1988Tolson v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 454 . . 1988Tolson v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 454 . [2] We note that in Ballard v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 482 , 318 N.E.2d 798 , the Court found a violation of Section 10 and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence1984The trial court was acting within the bounds of its discretion in evaluating these circumstances in the particular case as applying only a negligible mitigating force, and in evaluating the aggravating circumstances in the balance as applying an upward force warranting an enhancement of the prison sentence beyond the fixed term. 433 N.E.2d at 763 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Schiro v. State
green
1 sentence1984Schiro, supra; Brewer, supro; Judy, supra. As we stated in Schiro, our examination of the complete record including the record of the trial court's findings of aggravating circumstances protects each individual's constitutional rights. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Gardner v. State
green
2 sentences1982In fact, the record shows that the trial court stated: “The Court finds that there were neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in this case, the defendant being charged with rape with a deadly weapon and that in itself is a Class A felony without any aggravating circumstances brought forth.” This Court has repeatedly stated: “[Wjhen a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” Gardner v. State, 1982In fact, the record shows that the trial court stated: “The Court finds that there were neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in this case, the defendant being charged with rape with a deadly weapon and that in itself is a Class A felony without any aggravating circumstances brought forth.” This Court has repeatedly stated: “[Wjhen a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” Gardner v. State, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.