Millar v. State, No. 680S187

Docket NºNo. 680S187
Citation275 Ind. 465, 417 N.E.2d 1105
Case DateMarch 17, 1981
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1105

417 N.E.2d 1105
275 Ind. 465
Michael Edward MILLAR, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 680S187.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 17, 1981.

[275 Ind. 466]

Page 1106

Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Carr L. Darden, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Frederick N. Kopec, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellant Millar appeals from a denial of his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. On October 21, 1971, after trial by jury, appellant Millar was found guilty of Second Degree Murder. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed that conviction. Millar v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 368, 295 N.E.2d 814. On December 14, 1976, Appellant filed his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which was subsequently amended on April 27, 1977, and again on October 20, 1978. The trial court conducted a hearing on August 10, 1979. On January 24, 1980, the trial court filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying relief. Appellant filed his Motion to Correct Errors on March 24, 1980, and the trial court overruled that Motion on March 28, 1980. This appeal followed.

Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Ind.Code § 35-1-54-1 (repealed 1976), which permitted the imposition of either life imprisonment or the imposition of a fifteen to twenty-five year prison term upon conviction of second degree murder. Appellant claims that his life sentence is unconstitutional because the above statute provided[275 Ind. 467] for two widely divergent sentences, but set forth no specific criteria by which to determine which sentence should be imposed. He claims that this provision allowed the life term to be arbitrarily imposed, which is a denial of equal protection of law and renders the punishment cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 16 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

I.

The defendant-appellant was charged with first-degree murder, found guilty of second-degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ind.Code § 35-1-54-1 (repealed 1976), the statute under which he was convicted read as follows:

"Whoever, purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation, kills any human being, is guilty of murder in the second degree, and, on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life, or shall be imprisoned in the state prison not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) years."

The appellant relies heavily upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726,

Page 1107

33 L.Ed.2d 346 in his argument that because there were no specific criteria provided in the statute for determining which sentence to impose, he was denied equal protection of law and suffered cruel and unusual punishment. He acknowledges that Furman, supra, dealt with the death penalty but argues that the principles set forth in Furman apply to other penalties.

This Court has previously considered and decided this issue and found that Furman did not apply. In Wilson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 112, 121, 374 N.E.2d 45, 50 our Court stated:

"Appellant further argues that the jury was not provided with adequate guidelines to choose between a life sentence and a lesser sentence of fifteen to twenty-five years in prison for the crime of second-degree murder. He argues that the lack of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Wireman v. State, No. 382S118
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 26 March 1982
    ...contention that the trial court committed error by refusing this instruction. This issue has been waived. Millar v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1310, 1312; Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7). Finally, defendant alleges error in the giving of the ......
  • Abex Corp. v. Vehling, No. 2-881A284
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 19 January 1983
    ...his commission, we must deem any such issue waived. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Millar v. State (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1310, In any event, we are convinced that under the circumstances before us Vehling earned his c......
  • Sanders v. State, No. 1080S385
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 November 1981
    ...waived because defendant failed to support his allegations with discernible argument and cited authority. Millar v. State, (1981) Ind. 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State, (1980) Ind. 410 N.E.2d 1310, 1312. Defendant has simply presented us with an allegation with nothing presented in t......
  • Pollard v. State, No. 1-282A36
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 August 1982
    ...fundamental errors, but presents no cogent argument. We decline to address these issues. A.R. 8.3(A)(7); Millar v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105. For the above reasons, this cause is RATLIFF, P. J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur. --------------- 1 Pollard also argues that the foundation w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Wireman v. State, No. 382S118
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 26 March 1982
    ...contention that the trial court committed error by refusing this instruction. This issue has been waived. Millar v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1310, 1312; Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7). Finally, defendant alleges error in the giving of the ......
  • Abex Corp. v. Vehling, No. 2-881A284
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 19 January 1983
    ...his commission, we must deem any such issue waived. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Millar v. State (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1310, In any event, we are convinced that under the circumstances before us Vehling earned his c......
  • Sanders v. State, No. 1080S385
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 November 1981
    ...waived because defendant failed to support his allegations with discernible argument and cited authority. Millar v. State, (1981) Ind. 417 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Bledsoe v. State, (1980) Ind. 410 N.E.2d 1310, 1312. Defendant has simply presented us with an allegation with nothing presented in t......
  • Pollard v. State, No. 1-282A36
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 August 1982
    ...fundamental errors, but presents no cogent argument. We decline to address these issues. A.R. 8.3(A)(7); Millar v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1105. For the above reasons, this cause is RATLIFF, P. J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur. --------------- 1 Pollard also argues that the foundation w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT