Opinion ID: 852569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background and Case History

Text: In 2003, in a case not on appeal here, Cannon was convicted in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 6, for operating a vehicle after his license was forfeited for life and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Cannon pled guilty, and, on July 25, 2003, Judge Pro Tempore Jane Barker sentenced him to four years on home detention through HOCCS, a community corrections enterprise to which Marion County courts sometimes refer offenders. On that date, Judge Barker wrote a note in the case file, which read: `If he messes up off to DOC. Can't use his wife's hardship again.' (Tr. at 48-49.) In May 2004, Cannon was arrested again and charged in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 3, the case ultimately leading to this appeal. The State again charged him with operating a motor vehicle after his license was forfeited for life, with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and with public intoxication, any of which were in violation of his probationary sentence from Judge Barker's Division 6 case. On October 22, 2004, Judge Pro Tempore Jeffrey Marchal presided over Cannon's bench trial and found him guilty of operating a motor vehicle after his license was forfeited for life. Cannon's wife testified at the sentencing hearing before Judge Marchal. She described her physical condition and said, I need my husband . . . if you could just find a way or something to let my husband come back home because I need him back. . . . You know, some kind of mercy. Some kind of mercy for my husband, please. ( Id. at 41-42.) Cannon testified, I admit I was wrong for driving that particular day. . . . [M]y wife was having an asthma attack . . . [a]nd I just ask if the Court could find a way, you know, if I could be reinstated at HOCCS . . . if I could continue to . . . take care of my wife. ( Id. at 42-43.) Judge Marchal told Cannon he had considered the evidence at trial and at the sentencing hearing, the information in the pre-sentence report, and the arguments of counsel. He recited the aggravating and mitigating factors, finding the clearest aggravating factor to be Cannon's criminal history, which included among other things a 1992 conviction for operating a vehicle after a lifetime forfeiture for which Cannon was sentenced to home detention, a 1994 conviction for the same offense for which Cannon was sentenced to Community Corrections, and a 1997 conviction for the same offense for which Cannon again was sentenced to Community Corrections. Judge Marchal then said: Then in March of 2003 you were convicted once again of operating a motor vehicle while having your license forfeited for life. You were given four years in the HOCCS program, and you were serving that sentence out of Criminal Court 6 when you committed this offense. All of those things tell me that your likelihood of re-offense is high. In fact, I would put it at automatic. . . . I find that you have had the benefit of alternative programming consistently, but it has had no effect on your behavior. . . . As a mitigating factor I do find . . . that you have an alcohol problem . . . and I am also finding that imposition of a sentence in the Department of Correction would constitute a hardship on your wife. I know she wants you back. I know she has made a fervent plea on your behalf, but I am noting the Court's own hand notes from the Court 6 case that indicates on 7/25/03 and this is a direct quote from the judge, Judge Barker, If he messes up off to DOC. Can't use his wife's hardship again. The prior judge gave me notice that you would likely bring your wife in here to make the same plea in an effort to get leniency. Sir, I don't want to do what I am about to do to you, but I can't avoid it. . . . I believe the aggravators far, far, far outweigh the mitigators. . . . I am sentencing you to a term of five years in the Indiana Department of Correction. . . . Your sentence must run consecutive to any sentence you are serving or must serve. ( Id. at 47-49.) On appeal, Cannon argued that Judge Marchal's reference to Judge Barker's note was an improper ex parte communication. Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, the panel concluded that Judge Marchal's reference to the note was an improper ex parte communication and a violation of Canon 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Cannon, 839 N.E.2d at 194. We conclude otherwise. Judge Barker's note was not an ex parte communication, and Judge Marchal did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.