Whited v. State, 270S32
| Decision Date | 14 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 270S32,270S32 |
| Parties | Larry WHITED, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Brent A. Barnhart, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We take the occasion of the filing of appellant's petition for rehearing to clarify our earlier opinion, 269 N.E.2d 149, on this matter. As appellant points out his punishment as assessed by the Criminal Court of Marion County, Division One, on appeal from the Municipal Court of Marion County was a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and a jail sentence of one hundred eighty (180) days in the Marion County Jail. The fine and one hundred twenty (120) days of the jail sentence were suspended.
In affirming appellant's conviction we made reference to a fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and a sentence of thirty (30) days in jail, the punishment imposed by the Municipal Court. We neglected, however, to point out the reason for imposition of the latter punishment instead of that rendered by the Criminal Court. Our holding in that respect rests squarely upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2089, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, and followed by this Court in Eldridge v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 48 wherein by a unanimous court we said:
'* * * the threat or possibility of having a greater sentence imposed should not be a deterrent to the exercise of one's right of appeal.' Ind., 267 N.E.2d at 48.
Therefore, to the extent that the acts of the Marion County Criminal Court served to impose a sentence greater than that imposed in the Municipal Court its decision is reversed and it is instructed to vacate that portion of its judgment in conflict herewith. In all other respects its judgment remains affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diehl v. State
...People v. Scheck, 42 Ill.App.2d 117, 191 N.E.2d 645 (1963); Whited v. State, 256 Ind. 386, 269 N.E.2d 149 (1971), clarified, 256 Ind. 618, 271 N.E.2d 513 (1971); Commonwealth v. Harris, 101 Mass. 29 (1869); People v. Doyle, 21 Misc.2d 38, 195 N.Y.S.2d 770 (1960); People v. Jones, 63 N.Y.S.2......
-
Morris v. State
...and his sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.[28] Affirmed. Baker, J., and May, J., concur.1 See Whited v. State , 256 Ind. 618, 271 N.E.2d 513 (1971) ; Eldridge v. State , 256 Ind. 113, 267 N.E.2d 48 (1971) ; and Anderson v. State , 155 Ind. App. 465, 293 N.E.2d 222 ...
-
Anderson v. State, 1--972A63
...in the case at bar. Our Supreme Court reiterated its position regarding this issue in its opinion denying a rehearing in Whited v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 513, 'As appellant points out his punishment as assessed by the Criminal Court of Marion County, Division One, on appeal from the......
- Moses v. State