Schweitzer v. State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 32A05-9805-CR-251,32A05-9805-CR-251 |
| Citation | 700 N.E.2d 488 |
| Parties | Annetta M. SCHWEITZER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appellant-defendant Annetta Schweitzer appeals from her conviction for criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony. The facts relevant to this appeal are presented below.
On September 25, 1986, Schweitzer was convicted of criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony, and neglect of a dependent, as a Class B felony. The supreme court affirmed Schweitzer's criminal deviate conduct conviction but vacated her conviction for neglect of a dependent. Schweitzer v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1386, 1389 (Ind.1989). On November 26, 1986, the trial court sentenced Schweitzer to 50 years' imprisonment for the criminal deviate conduct conviction. On July 26, 1989, the trial court granted Schweitzer's petition to reduce her sentence to 20 years. This sentencing order was later vacated because Schweitzer had failed to file her petition within 180 days after she began serving her sentence; IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 provided that any sentence modification sought after this 180-day deadline was subject to prosecutorial consent, which was not granted in Schweitzer's case. 1 On July 1, 1997, Schweitzer filed another petition to modify her sentence, which was again opposed by the State; the trial court consequently denied Schweitzer's motion on January 30, 1998. Schweitzer now appeals.
Schweitzer presents three issues for review, which we have consolidated and restated as follows:
(1) whether IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 conflicts with Sections 16 and 18 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution; and
(2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that it had no jurisdiction on Schweitzer's motion for sentence modification.
Schweitzer argues that Article 1 §§ 16 and 18 of the Indiana Constitution, when read together, require the criminal justice system to provide a defendant with "an opportunity for rehabilitation where reasonably possible." Fointno v. State, 487 N.E.2d 140, 144 (Ind.1986). Schweitzer further contends that a defendant's right to rehabilitation cannot be subject to any time restrictions, and that IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 unconstitutionally limits this right by requiring prosecutorial consent for a sentence modification after a defendant has served 365 days of her sentence. Schweitzer characterizes this 365-day deadline as arbitrary and contrary to law.
When evaluating a statute that allegedly violates the Indiana Constitution, this Court's standard of review is well-established: every statute is presumed to comport with the Constitution until clearly overcome by a contrary showing. Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996). "The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute bears the burden of proof, and all doubts are resolved against that party." Id. The constitutionality of IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 was previously challenged in Beanblossom v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1345 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. In Beanblossom, this Court held that IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 does not violate Article 3 § 22 and Article 7 § 1 with respect to separation of powers and judicial powers, nor does it violate a defendant's rights to due process, equal protection of the laws, and equal access to the courts. Id. at 1347-1349. Schweitzer strenuously disagrees with Beanblossom's holding and instead advances arguments based upon her reading of Fointno.
IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 reads in relevant part as follows:
35-38-1-17 Reduction or suspension of sentence
Sec. 17(a) Within three hundred sixty-five (365) days after:
(1) the defendant begins serving his sentence;
(2) a hearing at which the defendant is present and of which the prosecuting attorney has been notified; and
(3) obtaining a report from the department of correction concerning the defendant's conduct while imprisoned;
the court may reduce or suspend the sentence. The court must incorporate its reasons in the record.
(b) 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. The court must give notice of the order to reduce or suspend the sentence under this section to the victim of the crime for which the defendant is serving the sentence.
Article 1 § 16 of the Indiana Constitution reads as follows: Article 1 § 18 provides: "The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice."
As previously noted, Schweitzer's arguments hinge upon the constitutional requirement that Indiana's criminal justice system must provide defendants with an opportunity for rehabilitation "where reasonably possible." Fointno, 487 N.E.2d at 144. Schweitzer's reliance on Fointno is misplaced: the supreme court addressed the issue of a manifestly unreasonable sentence in that case, not the reduction or suspension of a sentence already imposed as in the case at bar. The State argues, and we agree, that Schweitzer "erroneously equates opportunities for rehabilitation with opportunities for sentence modification." The record furnishes ample evidence that Schweitzer has been offered and has taken full advantage of numerous opportunities for rehabilitation while incarcerated.
Schweitzer repeatedly asserts that Article 1 §§ 16 and 18 mandate an opportunity for a defendant's rehabilitation "with no time limits" and attempts to link this assertion to the sentence modification provisions under IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 without citing any relevant authority. The statute's 365-day time limit applies strictly to a trial court's unfettered authority to modify a defendant's sentence, not to the extinguishing of a defendant's rehabilitation rights. Nowhere in her brief does Schweitzer explain or support her implied assertion that a defendant's release from incarceration is equivalent to rehabilitation, particularly with respect to Fointno and IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17. Furthermore, Schweitzer baldly accuses the prosecutor in this case of engaging in "vindictive justice" and fails to cite any convincing authority for her claim that the prosecutor's denial of her sentence modification unconstitutionally infringes upon her right to rehabilitation.
As fervently as Schweitzer argues that this Court's holding in Beanblossom does not apply to the facts of her case, a careful reading of the issues raised in her brief would indicate otherwise. The trial court reached the same conclusion after considering Schweitzer's motion to modify sentence. Schweitzer's arguments focus most heavily upon a prosecuting attorney's prerogative to approve or deny a defendant's sentence modification after the 365-day time limit expires under IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17; these arguments strongly echo the separation of powers issue addressed in Beanblossom. A trial court has no inherent authority over a defendant after pronouncing sentence. Beanblossom, 637 N.E.2d at 1348. Furthermore,
[t]he 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 had 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 scheme therefore does not violate the separation of powers.
The legislature's determination of the 365-day time limit is neither arbitrary or unreasoned, nor does it violate equal protection of the laws. Id. "The statute treats equally those prisoners who are similarly situated." Id. Schweitzer argues that defendants who are unable to rehabilitate themselves within the 365-day period will be adversely affected because their motions for sentencing modification will be denied by the prosecuting attorney. We note that no "fundamental right to liberty is at stake here, and the rational basis test is therefore applicable." Id. The State must balance the considerations of encouraging prisoner rehabilitation against the dangers of prematurely releasing them upon society, in addition to promoting the finality of judgments and an "ordered procedure for the modification of sentences." Id. at 1348-1349. The distinctions IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17 draws between time periods are legitimate and have a rational basis and therefore do not offend equal protection. Id. at 1348. If Schweitzer believes that the current 365-day time limit is too restrictive or that sentences should be reviewed without being subject to the approval of the prosecuting attorney, she should address her concerns to the legislature. Id.
Because Schweitzer's claim of unconstitutionality is without merit, we need not address her severability arguments with respect to IND. CODE § 35-38-1-17. We need only determine whether the trial court erred in ruling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v. State
... ... Fulkrod, 735 N.E.2d 851, 852 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (Any continuing jurisdiction after final judgment has been pronounced must either derive from the judgment itself or be granted to the court by statute or rule.) (citing Schweitzer v. State, 700 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied ), reh'g denied, summarily aff'd, 753 N.E.2d 630, 633 (Ind.2001). We therefore turn to the trial court's sentencing order to discern whether Hale's continued detention in the Fulton County Jail is illegal, and we first address ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
... ... Fulkrod, 753 N.E.2d 630, 633 (Ind.2001) (although the trial court had attempted to reserve the right to modify the defendant's sentence, the trial court lacked authority to grant defendant's petition to modify because it was filed more than 365 days after defendant was sentenced); Schweitzer v. State, 700 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ([I]f the prosecuting attorney should oppose the motion for sentence modification, the trial court lacks authority to modify the sentence.), trans. denied. 14] Moreover, there is no indication that the requirement of prosecutorial consent was an ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. State
... ... Prior to the revision the statute was largely focused on prosecutorial approval to the modification of a sentence. See Manley v. State , 868 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) ; Schweitzer v. State , 700 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). However, the Legislature shifted focus and among other things enacted a wholly new paragraph "(l)" which provides in relevant part:A person may not waive the right to sentence modification under this section as part of a plea agreement. Any purported ... ...
-
State v. Harper
... ... denied; Keys v. State, 746 N.E.2d 405, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. not sought; State v. Fulkrod, 735 N.E.2d 851, 854 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), aff'd,753 N.E.2d 630 (Ind.2001); State v. Porter, 729 N.E.2d 591, 592–93 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Schweitzer" v. State, 700 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied; Sanders v. State, 638 N.E.2d 840, 841 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. not sought. Further, these cases ultimately rely on Marshall v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), trans. denied, which does not support this proposition. \xC2" ... ...