Court Opinion

ID: 9897202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:08:34.039315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.116686
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Oct 19 2023, 12:16 pm

                                                                             CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court
                              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.
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 2 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

1This 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 3 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

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