IN THE

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 23S-CR-283

Jamone M. Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

–v–

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

Decided: October 19, 2023

Appeal from the Allen Superior Court

No. 02D05-2002-F4-18

The Honorable David M. Zent, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

No. 22A-CR-1127

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-CR-283 | October 19, 2023 Page 2 of 4

Per curiam.

A jury convicted defendant, Jamone Williams, of two counts of child 

molesting. After his conviction, Williams fell into poor health and could 

not be transported to the courthouse for sentencing. His original 

sentencing hearing was continued to a new date. Before the new 

sentencing date, Williams was hospitalized for a leg amputation.

On the day of his sentencing hearing—and as Williams was awaiting 

his procedure—the trial court, court reporter, prosecutor, and defense 

counsel traveled to the hospital. At the hospital, the court and Williams’s 

counsel had the following colloquy:

COURT: Is it correct that Mr. Williams is waiving his right to be 

present at sentencing and he does not want to participate at 

[sic] and wants to stay in the hospital room and he does not 

want us to enter? Is that correct?

DEFENSE: That’s correct, Your Honor. He does want to – he 

wants to have sentencing somewhere else, but he’s not in a 

position to do that. So, I told him this was going forward 

today, and he said he didn’t want to be present.

Tr. Vol. 3 at 105 (emphasis added). Finding Williams waived his right to 

be present at the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard argument from 

the State and Williams’s attorney.

The trial court sentenced Williams to consecutive prison terms totaling 

forty-nine years. The court found several aggravating factors and found 

Williams’s significant health issues to be a mitigating factor—specifically 

that Williams was “unlikely to recover.”

Williams appealed. Among other things, Williams argued that holding 

the sentencing hearing at the hospital violated his right to a public trial 

and his procedural due process rights. The Court of Appeals found 

Williams did not lodge a specific objection to the court’s procedure, 

thereby waiving the issue for appellate review. Williams v. State, No. 22A-
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-CR-283 | October 19, 2023 Page 3 of 4

CR-1127, at *13 (Ind. Ct. App. June 20, 2023) (mem.). The Court of Appeals 

affirmed in all other respects. Id.

We now grant transfer, see Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), and find Williams 

did not waive his right to be physically present at sentencing. Thus, it was 

improper to hold his sentencing at the hospital. 

“A defendant may waive his right to be present at sentencing if it is 

shown that his absence is knowing and voluntary.” Gillespie v. State, 634 

N.E.2d 862, 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. Here, Williams 

expressed that he “want[ed] to have sentencing somewhere else.” Tr. Vol. 

3 at 105. Williams’s statement shows he would have participated in the 

proceeding but for his hospitalization. In this context, Williams’s 

purported waiver was equivocal at best and was not unambiguously 

knowing and intelligent.

While Indiana Code section 35-38-1-4(a)1 requires that “[t]he defendant 

must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” (emphasis 

added), the record reveals no apparent justification to hold court in a 

hospital. Such a proceeding potentially implicates a defendant’s right to a 

public sentencing hearing, Hackett v. State, 266 Ind. 103, 360 N.E.2d 1000, 

1004 (1977), and may impede rights of the press and public, Williams v. 

State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 169 (Ind. 1997).

Appellate courts cannot ignore errors apparent on the face of the record 

which offend our concepts of criminal justice. See Batchelor v. State, 119 

N.E.3d 550, 558 (Ind. 2019) (finding “courts should resolve any doubts 

against a finding of invited error rather than engage in speculation”

(emphasis omitted)). Under these circumstances, we cannot condone a 

sentencing hearing at a hospital. We remind litigants and courts alike of 

the importance of making a record, particularly in extraordinary 

circumstances like this. See Hawkins, 982 N.E.2d at 1003 (urging trial courts 

1 This statute confers not only a right but an obligation to be present at sentencing. Hawkins v. 

State, 982 N.E.2d 997, 1003 n.4 (Ind. 2013). It is unclear why the parties did not agree to 

another continuance or to conduct remote proceedings. See Ind. Interim Administrative Rule 

14.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-CR-283 | October 19, 2023 Page 4 of 4

“to be cautious of using procedures—however efficient they may be—

without following all of the steps required to implement those procedures 

in a way that is fair to all involved”).

We therefore vacate Williams’s sentence and remand for a new 

sentencing hearing. In all other respects, we summarily affirm the Court of 

Appeals opinion. App. R. 58(A)(2). 

Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Stacy R. Uliana

Bargersville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana