Sec. 15. (a) This section does not apply to an
individual who is convicted of a felony offense under IC 35-45-9.
(b) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of a
charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed a
felony offense sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment
if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person:
(1) knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal
organization while committing the offense; and
(2) committed the felony offense:
(A) at the direction of or in affiliation with a criminal
organization; or
(B) with the intent to benefit, promote, or further the interests
of a criminal organization, or for the purposes of increasing the
person's own standing or position with a criminal organization.
(c) If the person is convicted of the felony offense in a jury trial, the
jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If
the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea,
the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.
(d) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing
is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally was a
member of a criminal organization while committing the felony offense
and committed the felony offense at the direction of or in affiliation
with a criminal organization as described in subsection (b), the court
shall:
(1) sentence the person to an additional fixed term of
imprisonment equal to the sentence imposed for the underlying
felony, if the person is sentenced for only one (1) felony; or
(2) sentence the person to an additional fixed term of
imprisonment equal to the longest sentence imposed for the
underlying felonies, if the person is being sentenced for more than
one (1) felony.
(e) A sentence imposed under this section shall run consecutively
to the underlying sentence.
(f) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section may not be
suspended.
(g) For purposes of subsection (c), evidence that a person was a
member of a criminal organization or committed a felony at the
direction of or in affiliation with a criminal organization may include
the following:
(1) An admission of criminal organization membership by the
person.
(2) A statement by:
(A) a member of the person's family;
(B) the person's guardian; or
(C) a reliable member of the criminal organization;
stating the person is a member of a criminal organization.
(3) The person having tattoos identifying the person as a member
of a criminal organization.
(4) The person having a style of dress that is particular to
members of a criminal organization.
(5) The person associating with one (1) or more members of a
criminal organization.
(6) Physical evidence indicating the person is a member of a
criminal organization.
(7) An observation of the person in the company of a known
criminal organization member on at least three (3) occasions.
(8) Communications authored by the person indicating criminal
organization membership, promotion of the membership in a
criminal organization, or responsibility for an offense committed
by a criminal organization.
(9) The person's use of the hand signs of a criminal organization.
(10) The person's involvement in recruiting criminal organization
members.
As added by P.L.109-2006, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.158-2013,
SEC.666; P.L.25-2016, SEC.29.
Notes of Decisions
Nathaniel Armstrong v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 14× “Whether Ind.Code § 35-50-2-15, the criminal gang enhancement statute, is unconstitutionally vague, and whether the enhancement is disproportionate to the offense; II.”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
· cites it 20× “See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Donnell D. Wilson v. State of Indiana, 30 N.E.3d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “” Wilson was convicted of Class D felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity under Indiana Code section 35-45-9-3 and received criminal gang enhancements under Indiana Code section 35-50-2-15. However, Section 35-50-2-15(a) states that “This section does not apply to an…”
State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “For example, a conviction would be required to enhance a sentence for a felony committed as a member of a criminal gang, see Ind.Code § 35-50-2-15 (Supp.2008), to prohibit possession of a firearm, see Ind.”
State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
“§ 18-8503 (enhancing punishment for enumerated offenses “committed for the benefit or at the direction of, or in association with, any criminal street gang member”); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-15 (b) (enhancing punishment for a felony committed by a gang member “at the direction…”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 84 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “The State’s original charge of the criminal gang enhancement tracked the language of Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-15(b) (2015) and stated, in relevant part, that, “on October 26, 2015, [Jackson] knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal gang while committing the…”
Donnell Wilson v. Ron Neal, 108 F.4th 938 (7th Cir. 2024).
“Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2013). That means Wilson was required to be sentenced to at least 90 years in prison.”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 12× “See generally I.C. § 35-50-2-15. [9] Thus, a sentence imposed on a criminal gang enhancement is fundamentally different from a sentence imposed on a habitual offender enhancement in two critical respects.”
Angel Garcia-Berrios v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “[18] At the time of the offense, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (d) provided that, if the jury “finds that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal gang while committing the felony offense and committed the…”
Rolando Manuel Leal, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (b) (2018). On appeal, Leal asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he had committed the murder while he was a member of a criminal gang or that he had committed the murder at the direction of or in affiliation with a criminal…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(a): 1 case
Donnell D. Wilson v. State of Indiana, 30 N.E.3d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Wilson was convicted of Class D felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity under Indiana Code section 35-45-9-3 and received criminal gang enhancements under Indiana Code section 35-50-2-15. However, Section 35-50-2-15(a) states that “This section does not apply to an…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(b): 6 cases
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
“See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 84 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“The State’s original charge of the criminal gang enhancement tracked the language of Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-15(b) (2015) and stated, in relevant part, that, “on October 26, 2015, [Jackson] knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal gang while committing the…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(b)(1): 1 case
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 84 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“The State’s original charge of the criminal gang enhancement tracked the language of Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-15(b) (2015) and stated, in relevant part, that, “on October 26, 2015, [Jackson] knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal gang while committing the…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(b)(2)(A): 1 case
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(b)(l): 1 case
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 84 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“The State’s original charge of the criminal gang enhancement tracked the language of Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-15(b) (2015) and stated, in relevant part, that, “on October 26, 2015, [Jackson] knowingly or intentionally was a member of a criminal gang while committing the…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(d): 3 cases
Nathaniel Armstrong v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“Whether Ind.Code § 35-50-2-15, the criminal gang enhancement statute, is unconstitutionally vague, and whether the enhancement is disproportionate to the offense; II.”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
“See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(d)(1): 2 cases
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
“See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(d)(2): 1 case
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
“See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(e): 2 cases
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).
“See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15 (2014 Repl.). 1 After a bifurcated trial, the jury found Jackson guilty as charged and that the enhancement applied to each count.”
Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“See generally I.C. § 35-50-2-15. [9] Thus, a sentence imposed on a criminal gang enhancement is fundamentally different from a sentence imposed on a habitual offender enhancement in two critical respects.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-15(g): 1 case
Nathaniel Armstrong v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“Whether Ind.Code § 35-50-2-15, the criminal gang enhancement statute, is unconstitutionally vague, and whether the enhancement is disproportionate to the offense; II.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.