Roach v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9512-CR-1324,49S00-9512-CR-1324 |
| Parties | (Ind. 1999) RUSSELL W. ROACH, PETITIONER (DEFENDANT BELOW, ) v. STATE OF INDIANA RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF BELOW. ) |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Attorney for Appellant Monica Foster Hammerle Foster & Long-Sharp 500 Place 501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46202
Attorneys for Appellee Pamela Carter Attorney General of Indiana Preston W. Black Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 402 W. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
On June 19, 1998, this Court affirmed Roach's conviction for murder. Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1998). We also affirmed the trial court's order requiring Roach to pay restitution to the victim's family in the amount of twelve thousand six hundred and ninety- seven dollars and thirty-eight cents ($12,697.38), for various expenses including funeral and burial expenses. Roach then filed this petition for rehearing. We grant Roach's petition for rehearing for the purpose of reconsidering whether the trial court possessed the statutory authority to order Roach to pay the victim's funeral and burial expenses.
On January 18, 1995, the date of the murder, Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3 authorized the trial court, within its discretion, to order defendant to pay restitution for certain enumerated expenses incurred by the victim's *fn1 family. If the trial court decided to order defendant to pay restitution, the statute required the court to:
base its restitution order upon a consideration of: (1) property damages of the victim incurred as a result of the crime, based on the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate); (2) medical and hospital costs incurred by the victim (before the date of sentencing) as a result of the crime; and (3) earnings lost by the victim (before the date of sentencing) as a result of the crime including earnings lost while the victim was hospitalized or participating in the investigation or trial of the crime.
Ind. Code §§ 35-50-5-3(a) (Supp. 1994). On direct appeal, we interpreted our decision in Reinbold to permit a trial court to order a defendant to pay restitution for funeral and burial expenses incurred by the victim. Roach, 695 N.E.2d at 943. However, our decision in Reinbold did not directly address whether a trial court possessed the statutory authority to order a defendant to pay restitution for funeral and burial expenses, but instead, addressed whether a victim's survivors are "victims" and entitled to restitution within the meaning of the statute. 555 N.E.2d at 469-71. Therefore, this Court has not decided whether the trial court possesses the authority to order a defendant to pay restitution for funeral and burial expenses.
A trial court's sentencing authority is limited to the statutory parameters prescribed by the General Assembly. See, e.g., Whitehead v. State, 511 N.E.2d 284, 296-97 (Ind. 1987); Kotsopoulos v. State, 654 N.E.2d 44, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). When construing a criminal statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. State
...within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 939 (Ind.1998), reh'g granted on other grounds, 711 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind.1999). 16. According to forensic pathologist Dr. Heidingsfelder, "rigor mortis is the stiffening that takes place in human skeletal muscle......
-
People v. Washington
...(same; offer of proof did not cover same reason for admitting testimony asserted on appeal), reh'g granted on other grounds, 711 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind.1999); State v. Lawrence, 352 N.C. 1, 530 S.E.2d 807, 820 (2000) (same); State v. Barton, 71 Ohio App.3d 455, 594 N.E.2d 702, 712 (1991) (same); ......
-
Carswell v. State
...it was erroneous. See Kotsopoulos, 654 N.E.2d at 44; cf. Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 943-944 (Ind. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 711 N.E.2d 1237 (restitution order requiring defendant convicted of murder to pay for the victim's burial monument, which had not yet been purchased, was pro......
-
Guzman v. State
...discretion” and will only be reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 943 (Ind.1998) [ on reh'g,711 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind.1999) ]. An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before......