Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1071S298,1071S298 |
| Parties | Richard Eugene JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Anthony V. Luber, South Bend, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing in which, among other things, he raises for the first time, the question as to the legality of the one to ten year sentence on his conviction for entering to commit a felony.
Appellant is correct in his observation that under the authority of Easton v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 307, 29 Ind.Dec. 698, the crime of entering to commit a felony is a lesser included offense of second degree burglary and, therefore, a person convicted of entering to commit a felony cannot receive a sentence greater than the sentence provided for in second degree burglary.
The cause is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for a correction of the sentence imposed upon appellant on the conviction for entering to commit a felony.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mills
... ... 620, 100 S.Ct. 1912, 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (reaffirming vitality of Harris/Hass rule) ... 5 See Roynica v. State, 54 Ala.App. 436, 309 So.2d 475, 482 (1974), cert. den. 423 U.S. 858, 96 S.Ct. 111, 46 L.Ed.2d 85 (1975) (no constitution cited; federal probably intended); State v. Johnson, 109 Ariz. 70, 505 P.2d 241 (1973) (no constitution cited; federal probably intended); Rooks v. State, 250 Ark. 561, 466 S.W.2d 478 (1971) (no constitution cited; both apparently intended); Jorgenson v. People, 174 Colo. 144, 482 P.2d 962 (1971) (no constitution cited; federal probably ... ...
-
Coleman v. State
... ... We agree with Defendant that a trial court may not emphasize a particular phase of a case by emphasizing certain propositions of law in its instructions. Rogers v. State, (1979) 272 Ind. 65, 75, 396 N.E.2d 348, 355; Johnson v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 683, 687, 284 N.E.2d 517, 519; Fehlman v. State, (1928) 199 Ind. 746, 755, 161 N.E. 8, 11. However, we do not find instructions numbers 9 and 1 to be so repetitious as to violate the substantial rights of the Defendant or become an argument of the court of one particular ... ...
-
Grooms v. State
... ... Then, other parts of Grooms' statements were admitted by the state in rebuttal, for impeachment purposes. There was no error in this use of Grooms' statements. Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1; Johnson v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, 288 N.E.2d 553. It is further argued that Grooms' allegedly inadmissible statements were the police's only source for their knowledge of a state's witness, who testified at trial. This witness's testimony is thus argued to be "the fruit of a poisonous ... ...
-
Kiper v. State
... ... By their very nature, instructions involve a certain repetition when taken as a whole. It is only when instructions are so repetitious as to place an undue emphasis on a particular point that they become improper. Downer v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 953; Johnson v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, on rehearing, 258 Ind. 692, 288 N.E.2d 553; Pfeifer v. State, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 315, 283 N.E.2d 567. Final Instruction Number 2 properly served to explain "reasonable doubt" to the jury. It did not unduly emphasize a particular point so as to ... ...