Beanblossom v. State
| Decision Date | 26 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 10A01-9401-CR-33,10A01-9401-CR-33 |
| Citation | 637 N.E.2d 1345 |
| Parties | Von A. BEANBLOSSOM, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Von A. Beanblossom, Jr., pro se.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Julie Zandstra Frazee, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Von A. Beanblossom, Jr., appeals the modification of his concurrent, forty-year, enhanced sentences for attempted murder and armed robbery, both class A felonies. We restate his allegations of error as follows:
I. A. Does Ind.Code 35-38-1-17(b), which gives the prosecuting attorney veto power over a judge, violate Article 3 § 22 and Article 7 § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana?
B. Does I.C. 35-38-1-17(b) violate the due process clause of amendment XIV by denying the Defendant a fair decision maker in post-conviction proceedings?
C. Does I.C. 35-38-1-17(b) violate the Defendant's rights of equal protections of the laws and equal access to the courts?
II. Did the post-conviction court abuse its discretion by granting the State's motion to correct error and by sentencing the Defendant solely upon the prosecutor's decision?
We affirm.
The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed Beanblossom's convictions and sentences on direct appeal in Beanblossom v. State (1988), Ind., 530 N.E.2d 741. Beanblossom then filed a pro se motion for the modification of his sentence, which the court below granted after a hearing. In its order, the court found, in pertinent part:
3. Since Defendant's incarceration with the Indiana Department of Corrections [sic] he has:
[a] Earned a High School Diploma maintaining a 3.54 GPA;
[b] Received an Outstanding Achievement Award for excellence in mathematics from the Indiana Council of Teachers of Mathematics;
[c] Earned credits from the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies;
[d] Earned a Vocational Drafting Certificate;
[e] Acquired employable computer skills;
[f] Received an offer of admission from Purdue University School of Electrical Engineering Technology[.]
4. The Defendant has generally received exemplary Offender Evaluation And Performance Reports during his incarceration and two members of the staff at the Indiana Youth Center appeared at the modification hearing to testify in his behalf, both acknowledging the rarity of such an appearance.
5. The Defendant is currently working in the data processing department at the Indiana Youth Center receiving on the job training in computer programming.
6. The Defendant has demonstrated a pattern of behavior consistent with evidence of rehabilitation.
7. The Defendant was sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, has expressed remorse, and given the Defendant's efforts while incarcerated, it appears unlikely that the Defendant would commit further offenses upon his eventual release from incarceration.
8. Applying the provisions of I.C. 35-50-2-2 to the underlying convictions of the Defendant, the Defendant must serve a minimum incarceration of ten (10) actual years in prison for his convictions of Class A Felonies.
9. Justice would be best served by a modification of the sentences imposed upon the Defendant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the sentences imposed upon the Defendant, Von A. Beanblossom, Jr., should be and they are hereby modified as follows:
[a] For the offense of Attempted Murder, a Class A Felony, modification to a forty (40) year sentence with twenty (20) years suspended, the Defendant to be placed on probation for a period of ten (10) years upon his release from incarceration.
[b] For the offense of Armed Robbery, a Class A Felony, modification to a forty (40) year sentence with twenty (20) years suspended, the Defendant to be placed on probation for a period of ten (10) years upon his release from incarceration, this sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for Attempted Murder.
The Defendant is directed to report to the Court's Probation Officer within seventy-two (72) hours of his release from incarceration.
SO ORDERED ...
The State then filed a MOTION TO CORRECT ERRORS and claimed that the court was without jurisdiction to modify Beanblossom's sentence because the prosecuting attorney had not given approval for modification, as contemplated by I.C. 35-38-1-17(b), which provides, in pertinent part:
If more than three hundred sixty-five (365) days have elapsed since the defendant began serving the sentence and after a hearing at which the convicted person is present, the court may reduce or suspend the sentence, subject to the approval of the prosecuting attorney.
In light of the State's motion to correct error, the trial court rescinded its previous order and, with the approval of the State, entered an Amended Order which granted Beanblossom a sentence modification of a forty-year sentence, with ten years suspended on each count and ten years of probation, sentences to be served concurrently.
Beanblossom attempts to present these initial issues for the first time before this court. He should have raised them in the sentencing court and therefore has not preserved them for appeal. Mahok v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 473, 174 N.E. 281 ().
Nevertheless, Beanblossom claims that I.C. 35-38-1-17 violates the Constitution of Indiana by encroaching on the judicial power of the courts. He asserts that, by subjecting the reduction or suspension of a previously imposed sentence to the approval of the prosecuting attorney, the statute impairs the inherent power of the court and gives the prosecuting attorney "veto power" over the judge. In essence, he claims the statute violates the separation of powers provided by the constitution.
This view presupposes that the trial court has the inherent power to effect the modification of a sentence and that the statute somehow takes this power away from the court. If the trial court had such inherent authority, then the statute in question might well be considered to have usurped that authority. The case law, however, indicates that the trial court does not have such inherent power under the circumstances.
After final judgment, a court retains only such continuing jurisdiction as is permitted by the judgment itself or as is given the court by statute or rule. Marts v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 63. Upon expiration of the time limit provided in I.C. 35-38-1-17, notwithstanding any petitions filed by the defendant, the court loses further jurisdiction over the defendant insofar as the alteration of his sentence is concerned. Id. at 53; State ex rel. Abel v. Vigo Circuit Court (1984), Ind., 462 N.E.2d 61, 63. Prior to the enactment of the predecessors to I.C. 35-38-1-17, a trial judge had no authority over a defendant after the judge had pronounced sentence, Abel, 462 N.E.2d at 63, and the court had no authority to change the sentence of the defendant after the defendant had started to serve his time. Christakis v. State (1986), Ind.App., 493 N.E.2d 471, 472. After those points in time, the jurisdiction over the defendant had gone to the Department of Correction. Abel, 462 N.E.2d at 63.
By the present statute, the jurisdiction of the sentencing court to modify the sentence remains but the court had no authority to render the particular modification of Beanblossom's sentence because 365 days had passed since he had begun to serve his sentence and the prosecuting attorney had not approved the modification. The legislature was free, through the statute, to give the trial court authority to render a modification of the sentence with whatever conditions and within whatever time it deemed appropriate. The legislature chose to subject the authority to reduce or suspend a sentence to the approval of the prosecuting attorney if 365 days has passed. Even though the authority to modify is subject to such a condition, the statute does not take judicial power away from the trial court and give it to the prosecuting attorney. The statute gives the sentencing court authority, subject to certain conditions, to change the sentence of the defendant after the court has pronounced sentence and after the defendant has begun to serve that sentence. In other words, the statute gives the court authority it does not otherwise have and does not transfer power between branches of government. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stenklyft
...transfer power between branches of government. The scheme therefore does not violate the separation of powers. Beanblossom v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1345, 1348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). 17. State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Minn. 18. I would treat the district attorney's veto as a severable provisi......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...attacked collaterally or directly "at any time." Hull v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1178, 1181 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (citing Beanblossom v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1345, 1349 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied). Not only may an illegal sentence be challenged at any time, but this court is "duty bound" to correc......
-
Greer v. State
...of probation may impinge upon the probationer's exercise of an otherwise constitutionally protected right); Beanblossom v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1345, 1348 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied (given a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his As Greer has f......
-
C.A.B. v. J.D.M. (In re C.B.M.)
..."where the trial court lacks authority to act." Kitchen v. Kitchen, 953 N.E.2d 646, 651 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Beanblossom v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1345, 1349 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ). Where personal jurisdiction was lacking—that is, where imposition of judgment amounted to a violation of due pro......