Saunders v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 03S01-9201-CR-45,03S01-9201-CR-45 |
| Citation | 584 N.E.2d 1087 |
| Parties | Donald F. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
This cause comes to us on a petition to transfer from the First District Court of Appeals. Following a jury trial, appellant, Donald F. Saunders, was convicted on two counts of dealing in cocaine, I.C. 35-48-4-1, a Class A felony; dealing in a schedule I controlled substance, I.C. 35-48-4-2, a Class B felony; two counts of conspiracy to deal in cocaine, I.C. 35-41-5-2 and I.C. 35-48-4-1, a Class A felony; and conspiracy to commit dealing in a schedule I controlled substance, I.C. 35-41-5-2 and 35-48-4-2, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced appellant to the presumptive terms of thirty years for each of the Class A felony convictions and the presumptive ten-year term for each Class B felony conviction. The trial court then ordered that all these sentences be served consecutively resulting in a total term of imprisonment of 140 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's convictions and sentence. Saunders v. State (1990), Ind.App., 562 N.E.2d 729 (Shields, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Appellant now brings this petition to transfer asserting that the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to find that appellant's right to a speedy trial was infringed upon as he was not tried within seventy days after the filing of his motion for early trial. Appellant further contends that the Court of Appeals majority erred when it upheld the trial court's imposition of appellant's sentence of 140 years, a sentence appellant maintains is manifestly unreasonable. We now grant transfer and vacate that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing appellant's sentence. We find that appellant's sentence of 140 years was manifestly unreasonable. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), however, we summarily affirm appellant's convictions and the Court of Appeals opinion with respect to the issue of appellant's early trial motion.
Indiana Appellate Rule 17 provides that the Supreme Court will review sentences imposed upon convictions appealable to that Court. When the sentence imposed appears to be manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, this Court has the constitutional duty to revise such sentence on appeal. Fointno v. State (1986), Ind., 487 N.E.2d 140. A sentence is manifestly unreasonable when no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate to the particular offense and offender for which such sentence was imposed. App.R. 17. When a sentencing court exercises its discretion to enhance a presumptive sentence, order that sentences be served consecutive, or both, the record must identify the relevant factors which underlie this decision. Shippen v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buie v. State
...or attempt to procure other evidence. Saunders v. State (1990), Ind.App., 562 N.E.2d 729, 743, vacated on other grounds, (1992), Ind., 584 N.E.2d 1087. A violation of § 35-33-7-1 is not an automatic ground to suppress a statement obtained in the time between a defendant's arrest and his ini......
-
Bigler v. State
... ... Bigler's sentence is within the range of reasonableness when compared with the sentences imposed in other drug dealing cases. Cf. Saunders v. State (1992), Ind., 584 N.E.2d 1087 (Consecutive sentences on three dealing counts for a total of seventy years not manifestly unreasonable in light of defendant's two-offense criminal history, fact present offenses committed while on parole and finding appellant likely to commit another crime); ... ...
-
Chavez v. State, 79A02-9812-CR-986.
...treatment, despite fact that defendant had dependent children and was in poor health), trans. denied; cf. Saunders v. State, 584 N.E.2d 1087, 1089 (Ind.1992) (140-year sentence for three counts of dealing and three counts of conspiracy manifestly unreasonable); cf. also Beno v. State, 581 N......
-
Drakulich v. State
...the conspirator's involvement in each crime." Saunders v. State, 562 N.E.2d 729, 739 (Ind.Ct. App.1990), aff'd in relevant part, 584 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind.1992). Whether one or several conspiracies occurred is a question of fact for the jury. Id. Therefore, our task on appeal is to determine whe......