Court Opinion

ID: 9516089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:34:17.126758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:25.690288
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The decision of this Court in State v. Hicks (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 1014, dealt with the limits of the authority granted the State by statute to appeal from "an order granting a motion to dismiss an....information." 1.0. 35-1-47-2(1). I dissented to the holding of the Court that the State was thereby authorized to appeal from the dismissal of a habitual offender allegation added by the State after the accused had entered a plea of guilty and the plea had been accepted by the trial court, but before sentencing. Upon the basis that the State was not so authorized, I further adjudged that Hicks could not, consistent with the protection of the State and Federal Constitutions against double jeopardy, be subjected upon remand to more than a sentence of twenty years, the sentence he did receive and commence to serve upon his plea of guilty.
Upon remand the State was permitted to amend its charge by adding the habitual offender allegation, Hicks withdrew his plea of guilty, and was tried, found guilty and received a sentence of fifty years.
I continue to adjudge that the sentence of fifty years, to the extent that it exceeds the original sentence of twenty years, is prohibited by the double jeopardy doctrine. I do vote to affirm the convictions.