Title: Victor Karp v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 15S04-1610-CR-555
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 25, 2016

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Leanna Weissmann 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Lawrenceburg, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Paula J. Beller 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 15S04-1610-CR-555 
 
VICTOR KARP,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below).  
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court, No. 15D01-1412-F4-71  
The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32 
_________________________________ 
 
October 25, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
After declining to plead guilty and receive a sentence capped at twenty years, Victor Karp 
was convicted by a jury of Level 4 felony burglary and was found to be a habitual offender.  The 
trial court sentenced Karp to an aggregate term of twenty-four years.  Karp appealed, contending 
among other things that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him.  Specifically, Karp 
argued the trial court sentenced Karp more harshly because he exercised his constitutional right to 
a jury trial. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 25 2016, 2:45 pm
 
 
 
The Court of Appeals affirmed Karp’s conviction and sentence.  Karp v. State, No. 15A04-
1601-CR-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).  In so doing, the court found Karp’s sentencing argument 
“specious and not supported by cogent reasoning.”  Id. at 6.  While we agree with our colleagues’ 
ultimate resolution of the sentencing issue and the case as a whole, we do not share their assessment 
of Karp’s sentencing argument.  Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court 
of Appeals opinion pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), with the exception of the above-
quoted passage, which is hereby vacated.   
 
Rush, C.J., and Rucker and David, JJ., concur. 
Massa and Slaughter, JJ., concur in result.