Court Opinion

ID: 9541974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:30:20.031856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:30.945108
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
This statute like the Federal Probation Act enacted by Congress in 1925, and construed by the United States Supreme Court in Roberts v. U.S. (1943), 320 U.S. *516264, 64 S. Ct. 113, 88 L. Ed. 41, authorizes a sentencing judge, in a certain defined situation to suspend the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, and to place the defendant on probation. The authority of courts to suspend the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment is defined and distinguished from their authority to suspend the execution of a sentence of imprisonment in the following sentence of IC 1971, 35-7-1-1, being Burns § 9-2209:
“In case the court shall impose a fine, with a concurrent sentence of imprisonment, the court may suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment and may place the defendant on probation and may require that said fine be paid in one or several sums while on probation; or the court may impose a fine and may suspend the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment, and may place the defendant on probation for such period as the court may prescribe.” (Emphasis added.)
This authority to suspend the imposition of sentence of imprisonment would legitimately be utilized in Indiana, for example, by the judge of a court having only misdemeanor jurisdiction, when sentencing a defendant following a plea of guilty to an offense, the penalty for which may be both a fine and imprisonment and the judge couples that suspension with an order to pay a fine. Such a decision by the trial court would meet the requirements of both Burns § 9-2209 and CR. II.1 In this case it is unnecessary to define the exact perimeters of the authority of courts to suspend imposition of sentences. That the power exists in contemplation of this statute is here sufficient. With the statutory distinction in mind suspension of imposition on the one hand and suspension of execution on the other, the intention of the Legislature in enacting the following provision in IC 1971, 35-7-2-2, being Burns § 9-2211, becomes manifest:
*517“If it shall appear that the defendant has violated the terms of his probation or has been found guilty of having committed another offense, the court may revoke the probation or the suspension of sentence and may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed." (Emphasis added.)
This provision was intended to authorize a trial court to impose any term of imprisonment contemplated by the appropriate sentencing statute, where the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment had been suspended, that is to say, where no term of imprisonment had been originally stated. In the event a court in a proper case, has legitimately placed a convicted defendant on probation without announcing his decision upon the time to be served in jail, he retains the full range of sentencing possibilities upon revocation of that probation. But where the trial court suspends the execution of a specific term of imprisonment upon conditions, he is not authorized by this language to vacate that specific term, and to substitute a greater term of imprisonment for it at some future time, after a violation of the conditions.
The first judgment of the trial court for carrying a pistol without a license, was rendered on November 13, 1970, and reads as follows:
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Defendant James Smith be and hereby is sentenced to the Indiana State Farm for One (1) year and fined Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) and Costs. Sentence Suspended. Probation for One (1) year. Surety released.”
In May of 1971, during probation, the appellant was convicted of kiting a bad check and was appropriately sentenced. On June 9, 1971, following a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentence for carrying a pistol without a license, and vacated his judgment and entered a new judgment as follows:
“All right, the defendant having been found guilty in this Court on May twenty-first, 1971, of committing the crime of Uttering a Forged Instrument in the month of February,-*5181971, at a time while he was on probation to this Court, I now find that the defendant has not behaved well and has violated the terms of his probation. The probation and suspension of sentence are therefore revoked. The judgment of sentence heretofore entered on November the twentieth, 1970, is vacated and set aside. I find the defendant’s age to be twenty-four (24) years, and I sentence him to imprisonment at the Indiana State Reformatory for a period of ten years. All right, that’s all.”
I am convinced, that the interpretation given the language in the Roberts case is correct, and that the same construction should be afforded the identical language in Indiana’s statute. I would therefore hold that Burns § 9-2211, does not-authorize the entry of the second judgment rendered by the trial court here.
If the Legislature intended by this statute, as is held by the majority to authorize a trial court to add years to a term of imprisonment already stated in a legal and original judgment by the additional terms of which a defendant is placed on probation as was done in this case, I would be irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that this statute, insofar as such a result was intended is repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses of our State and Federal Constitutions. In In Re Lange (1874), 18 Wall. 163, 21 L. Ed. 872, the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevented the criminal from being twice punished for the same offense on the same verdict. Also, while courts retain inherent judicial power to alter judgments during the term in which they are rendered, that power does not include the power to augment a lawful judgment which has been partially executed. U.S. v. Benz (1931), 282 U.S. 304, 51 S. Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354.
Here the appellant was told by the Court’s judgment that a term of one year imprisonment would follow a revocation of the suspension. He left the courtroom with this understanding. He then commenced to comply with the terms of the judgment by serving on probation and paying the sum of *519fifty dollars ($50.00) towards a two hundred dollar ($200.00) fine imposed by the original judgment. Having therefore suffered part of the punishment meted out by the trial court in the form of probation and partial payment of a fine, prior to the violation of probationary terms, the subsequently imposed sentence of ten years imprisonment was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. State v. Wheeler (1972), 108 Ariz. 338, 498 P. 2d 205. A Kentucky statute, almost identical to Burns § 9-2211, was held violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause in Hord v. Commonwealth (1970), Ky., 450 S.W. 2d 530.
I think it is important to point out that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the States until 1969. Benton v. Maryland (1969), 395 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707. Therefore the impact of that Clause upon our sentencing statutes was not assessed in such cases as State ex rel. Wilson v. Lowdermilk, Judge (1963), 245 Ind. 93, 195 N. E. 2d 476, and Sutton v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 368, 191 N. E. 2d 104. Davis v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 58, 267 N. E. 2d 63, is the first Indiana case to assess this impact.
North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, and Colten v. Kentucky (1972), 407 U.S. 104, 92 S. Ct. 1953, 32 L. Ed. 2d 584, are inapposite here, since they involve a new sentence imposed after retrial following a successful appeal, and after retrial de novo in a two-tiered trial court system. In the case before us, there was no fresh determination of guilt or innocence. I dissent.
Note. — Reported in 307 N. E. 2d 281.

. Criminal Rule 11 reads in part: “In all courts of superior jurisdiction having general jurisdiction to try felony charges, the trial court shall sentence a defendant convicted in a criminal case on a plea of not guilty within thirty (30) days of the finding or verdict of guilty.”