Title: Desmond L. Davidson v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49S02-1001-CR-41
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2010

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Joel M. Schumm  
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
Ruth Ann Johnson 
 
 
 
 
 
Gary Damon Secrest 
Marion County Public Defender 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General  
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wade James Hornbacher 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
James Edward Porter II 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-1001-CR-41 
 
 
DESMOND DAVIDSON,  
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49F15-0808-FD-185990 
The Honorable James Osborn, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0904-CR-287 
_________________________________ 
 
May 25, 2010 
 
Dickson, Justice. 
 
 
Contrasting opinions of the Court of Appeals have disagreed about the manner and extent 
of consideration to be given to the suspended portion of a sentence upon appellate review.  To 
resolve this conflict, we granted transfer and hold that appellate review under Indiana Appellate 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
May 25 2010, 10:48 am
 
2 
Rule 7 may include consideration of the totality of the penal consequences found in a trial court's 
sentence. 
 
 
The defendant was convicted of Auto Theft, a class D felony, and Resisting Law En-
forcement, a class A misdemeanor.  For these convictions, he received an aggregate sentence of 
545 days, the advisory sentence for a class D felony, with 180 days executed and 365 days sus-
pended to probation.  The defendant appealed, presenting only a claim for appellate review and 
revision of the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) and asserting that the total sentence 
of 545 days was inappropriate.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  Davidson v. State, 916 N.E.2d 
954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 
 
 
The Court of Appeals panel, however, was not in full agreement regarding whether "to 
review his partially-suspended advisory sentence the same as if it were a fully-executed advisory 
sentence."  Id. at 958.  The majority opinion, authored by Judge Najam, favored consideration of 
the fact that a portion of the sentence was suspended, agreeing with Judge Bradford's majority 
opinion for a unanimous panel in Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1084–86 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2009), trans. denied, which adopted Judge Kirsch's dissenting view in Eaton v. State, 825 N.E.2d 
1287, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. not sought.  Accord Beck v. State, 790 N.E.2d 520, 522–
23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. not sought.  Judge Barnes wrote a separate concurring-in-result 
opinion in the present case, urging that the reviewing court should consider only the defendant's 
full 545-day sentence "without regard for the fact that a majority of that sentence was suspended 
to probation."  Davidson, 916 N.E.2d at 962.  This view was also favored in Eaton, 825 N.E.2d 
at 1290–91 (declining to consider the fact that part of the sentence was suspended); Pagan v. 
State, 809 N.E.2d 915, 926 n.9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (including both the executed 
and the suspended portions of the sentence when determining whether the defendant received a 
maximum sentence); and Cox v. State, 792 N.E.2d 898, 904 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. de-
nied (finding the maximum sentence was imposed despite the fact that part of the sentence was 
suspended).  In the present case, the defendant's sole claim on transfer is that, upon review under 
Appellate Rule 7(B), the reviewing court should evaluate only the full, aggregate sentence with-
out considering whether all or any portion of it was suspended. 
 
 
3 
 
The Indiana Constitution expressly provides an appellate power to "review and revise the 
sentence imposed."  Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4.  Pursuant to this provision, Indiana Appellate Rule 7 
authorizes a criminal defendant to appeal a sentence and states that the reviewing court "may re-
vise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the 
Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the charac-
ter of the offender."  App. R. 7(B).  The defendant urges that in exercising this power, only his 
aggregate sentence of 545 days should be evaluated, without consideration of the fact that the 
sentencing judge ordered 365 days suspended to probation and only 180 days to be executed. 
 
 
In determining the penal consequences for a convicted defendant, trial courts have a va-
riety of options beyond that of determining the length of a sentence.  In imposing a sentence, trial 
judges may order, for example, suspension of the sentence,1 probation,2 home detention,3 place-
ment in a community corrections program,4 executed time in a Department of Correction facili-
ty,5 or serving of sentences on multiple convictions concurrently rather than consecutively.6  And 
the General Assembly provides for additional penalties that can be levied against a defendant 
such as restitution and fines.7 
 
 
We decline to narrowly interpret the word "sentence" in Appellate Rule 7 to constrict ap-
pellate courts to consider only the appropriateness of the aggregate length of the sentence with-
out considering also whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended or otherwise crafted 
using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial judge.  This does not preclude a 
reviewing court from determining a sentence to be inappropriate due to its overall sentence 
                                                 
 
1 Ind. Code §§ 35-38-1-17, 35-50-2-2. 
 
 
2 I.C. § 35-38-2. 
 
 
3 I.C. § 35-38-2.5. 
 
 
4 I.C. § 35-38-2.6. 
 
 
5 I.C. § 35-38-3. 
 
 
6 I.C. § 35-50-1-2. 
 
 
7 I.C. § 35-50-5. 
 
4 
length despite the suspension of a substantial portion thereof.  A defendant on probation is sub-
ject to the revocation of probation and may be required to serve up to the full original sentence. 
 
Conclusion 
 
 
Upon the review of sentence appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7, appellate courts 
may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the 
defendant.  The Court of Appeals in this case was correct.  We disapprove of the contrary views 
expressed in Eaton, 825 N.E.2d at 1290–91; Pagan, 809 N.E.2d at 926; and Cox, 792 N.E.2d at 
904.  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
 
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.