Court Opinion

ID: 9736379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:54:12.557596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.302902
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in result in part with separate opinion.
I concur with the majority’s conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and double jeopardy. I disagree, however, as to the majority’s conclusion that under certain circumstances the State is permitted to challenge a defendant’s sentence on cross-appeal. I would conclude that the State may not challenge a sentence on cross-appeal in the absence of legal authority expressly authorizing it to do so. I concur in result regarding McCullough’s sentence because it remains unchanged.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A)10 prohibits the State from initiating an appeal of a *1283sentence — an indication to me that State appeals are extremely limited. This Rule, however, does allow the State to “cross-appeal where provided by law.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(A) (emphasis added).
The majority interprets Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A) as limiting the State’s right to cross-appeal a defendant’s sentence to cases in which the defendant has initiated an appeal of his or her sentence.11 However, I am not convinced that the State has the right to cross-appeal a defendant’s sentence in any case. Contrary to the majority’s analysis, in my opinion, the issue is not whether the State is expressly prohibited from challenging a defendant’s sentence on cross-appeal. Based on the language of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A), which permits the State to cross-appeal where “provided by law,” I believe the issue is whether Indiana law expressly allows such a challenge. For several reasons, I conclude that it does not.
Indiana Code Section 35-38-4-2 describes the limited circumstances in which the State may appeal and provides:
Appeals to the supreme court or to the court of appeals, if the court rules so provide, may be taken by the state in the following cases:
(1) From an order granting a motion to dismiss an indictment or information.
(2) From an order or judgment for the defendant, upon his motion for discharge because of delay of his trial not caused by his act, or upon his plea of former jeopardy, presented and ruled upon prior to trial.
(3) From an order granting a motion to correct errors.
(4) Upon a question reserved by the state, if the defendant is acquitted.
(5) From an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution.
(6) From any interlocutory order if the trial court certifies and the court on appeal or a judge thereof finds on petition that:
(A) the appellant will suffer substantial expense, damage, or injury if the order is erroneous and the determination thereof is withheld until after judgment;
(B) the order involves a substantial question of law, the early determination of which will promote a more orderly disposition of the case; or
(C) the remedy by appeal after judgment is otherwise inadequate.
In addressing a prior version of this statute, our supreme court acknowledged that the State’s limited right to prosecute a criminal appeal is dependant on legislative enactment. State v. Sierp, 260 Ind. 57, 60, 292 N.E.2d 245, 246 (1973). The Sierp court observed:
“Generally speaking, under the common law as understood and administered in this country, the state or United States had no right to an appeal or writ of error in criminal cases. It is apprehended that the reason for such a policy was built on the idea that, when the state in its sovereign capacity brought a citizen into its own tribunals, before its own officers, and in obedience to its own processes, and lost, its avenging hand should be stayed except in unusual cases *1284where the power to appeal was expressly conferred.”
Sierp, 260 Ind. at 60, 292 N.E.2d at 246 (quoting 92 A.L.R. 1137). The court concluded “that the state’s right to appeal is statutory only....” Id., 292 N.E.2d at 247.
Here, the State’s challenge of McCullough’s sentence does not fall into any of the categories set forth in Indiana Code Section 35-38^1-2. Thus, in my opinion, there is no statutory authority for the State to attack McCullough’s sentence. As the majority mentions, the statute does not expressly address the issue of cross-appeals. However, the statute generally limits appeals that “may be taken by the state.” Ind.Code § 35-38-4-2. This is broad language, and I believe it applies to any circumstance in which the State is prosecuting an appeal regardless of whether the State is initiating an appeal or cross-appealing. I see little logic in prohibiting the State from initiating an appeal challenging a defendant’s sentence on the one hand, as Indiana Code Section 35-38-4-2 and Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A) do, while on the other hand allowing the State to challenge a sentence on cross-appeal as long as the defendant has raised any sentencing issue on appeal.
I also do not believe that the fundamental error doctrine, which we have used to allow the State to challenge an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal, is applicable here. See Abron v. State, 591 N.E.2d 634, 638 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (“We need not determine whether the issue falls within [I.C. § 35-38-4-2], however, because a trial court’s failure to sentence a defendant in accordance with statutory requirements constitutes fundamental error, and may therefore be presented by the State for the first time upon appeal.”), trans. denied. Because there is no allegation that McCullough’s sentence is statutorily impermissible, there is no fundamental error.
Article 7, Section 6, of the Indiana Constitution expressly provides for the “review and revision of sentences for defendants in all criminal cases.” (Emphasis added). There is no mention of the State’s right to challenge a defendant’s sentence. This language indicates to me that the right to appeal sentences was intended to benefit defendants.
Such a reading of the constitution, I believe, is consistent with Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007) (emphasis added), in which, referring to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), our supreme court stated, “It is on this basis alone that a criminal defendant may now challenge his or her sentence ....” At no point does the Anglemyer court indicate the State has a right to challenge a defendant’s sentence as being too lenient.
Similarly, in 2003, our supreme court changed the standard of appellate review from “manifestly unreasonable” to “inappropriate” as a modest step “to provide more realistic appeal of sentencing issues.” Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind.2003). In doing so, our supreme court observed, “[t]his formulation places central focus on the role of the trial judge, while reserving for the appellate court the chance to review the matter in a climate more distant from local clamor.” Id. at 856-57. This review change does not appear to have been intended to allow the State to more easily advocate that a defendant’s legally permissible sentence was too lenient. Instead, I believe our supreme court, in drafting Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) and applying it in numerous cases, is concerned with correcting sentences that are too severe. See Combs v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1053, 1065 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (Vaidik, J., dissenting) (“Indeed, Appellate Rule *12857(B) is used as a vehicle to reduce a defendant’s sentence.”), trans. denied.
I also believe the majority’s reliance on Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.2008) is misplaced. Monroe does not hold that the State is authorized to challenge a defendant’s sentence as being inappropriate. To the contrary, at issue in Monroe was the defendant’s claim that his sentence was inappropriate. Moreover, Monroe was sentenced pursuant to the presumptive sentencing scheme, which required the trial court to balance the three aggravating circumstances against the non-existent mitigating circumstances. The trial court sentenced Monroe to eight years less than the presumptive on each count but ordered consecutive sentences, and our supreme court observed, “Indeed we find it ironic that despite a finding of aggravating circumstances, the trial court nonetheless imposed less than the presumptive sentence on each count.” Id. at 580. Although our supreme court imposed a more severe sentence on each count, it did so at least in part because the trial court initially erroneously weighed the aggravators and miti-gators. Our supreme court also modified the sentence so that the sentence on each count would be served concurrently. Further, Monroe’s total sentence was reduced from 100 years executed to fifty years. In my opinion, our supreme court’s imposition of a reduced sentence hardly supports the proposition that the State has the right to challenge a sentence as being too lenient. I believe Monroe is inapposite to the question before us today.
I am also not persuaded by the majority’s reference to various state’s statutes that address this issue. The ability of the state to appeal a sentence as being too lenient is state specific. Indiana’s constitution, statutes, rules, and caselaw governing sentencing are unique. Likewise, the issue is not whether the State’s challenge of a sentence amounts to double jeopardy — I do not contend that it does. The references to other jurisdictions are not persuasive to me as to whether the State is authorized to pursue a cross-appeal of a defendant’s sentence in Indiana.
I believe based on the plain language of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A) that the State must be authorized by law before it can pursue a cross-appeal challenging a defendant’s sentence. Neither the State nor the majority point to any such authorizing authority. Accordingly, although allowing the State to appeal a defendant’s sentence has an initial undeniable “sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” attractiveness, I do not agree that cross-appeal may be made simply because there is nothing prohibiting it. It is my belief that Indiana jurisprudence leans heavily in the direction of not allowing such an appeal. In my opinion, the majority’s holding chills the right of defendants to appeal sentences. Until directed otherwise, either by our legislature or our supreme court, I conclude that the State is not permitted to challenge a defendant’s sentence on cross-appeal in any circumstance. For this reason, I concur in result with the majority’s conclusion affirming McCullough’s sentence.

. Curiously, the State does not refer to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A) in its brief.

. Based on its holding that Indiana Appellate Rule 7(A) only permits the State to cross-appeal where the defendant has challenged his or her sentence on appeal, the majority notes that the prima facie error rule is “inapplicable." Op. at 1277 n. 1. When applying the majority's holding, I would conclude that the prima facie standard is applicable and that the State simply did not meet its burden.