Court Opinion

ID: 9897339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:21.440491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.209468
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Jul 19 2023, 9:19 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns                                            Theodore E. Rokita
Indianapolis, Indiana                                       Attorney General
                                                            Nicole D. Wiggins
                                                            Deputy Attorney General
                                                            Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
     COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Emmett Lawrence,                                            July 19, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            23A-CR-6
        v.                                                  Appeal from the
                                                            Marion Superior Court
State of Indiana,                                           The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff                                          Jose Salinas, Judge
                                                            The Honorable
                                                            John Christ, Magistrate
                                                            Trial Court Cause No.
                                                            49D23-2110-CM-32404

                                   Opinion by Judge Vaidik
                                Judges Mathias and Pyle concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023                                 Page 1 of 6
      Vaidik, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   In 2021, Emmett Lawrence was charged with Class A misdemeanor carrying a

      handgun without a license under Indiana Code section 35-47-2-1. On July 1,

      2022, while Lawrence’s case was pending, the Indiana General Assembly

      amended the statute to remove the license requirement. Lawrence was later

      convicted. He now appeals, arguing the 2022 amendment to the statute is

      remedial and therefore applies retroactively to him. We hold that the 2022

      amendment to Section 35-47-2-1 is not remedial, as it did not cure a defect in

      the statute but rather signaled a change in Indiana’s policy on carrying

      handguns. Because the 2022 amendment to Section 35-47-2-1 is not remedial, it

      does not apply retroactively to Lawrence. We therefore affirm his conviction.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   On October 20, 2021, the police found a handgun in the console of Lawrence’s

      car. Because Lawrence did not have a license to carry the gun, he was arrested

      and charged with Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license

      under Section 35-47-2-1. At the time of Lawrence’s offense, the statute provided

      that, subject to some exceptions, “a person shall not carry a handgun in any

      vehicle or on or about the person’s body without being licensed under this

      chapter to carry a handgun.” Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(a) (version effective until

      June 30, 2022).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023             Page 2 of 6
[3]   On July 1, 2022, while Lawrence’s case was pending, the General Assembly

      amended Section 35-47-2-1 to remove the license requirement, effectively

      eliminating the criminal offense of carrying a handgun without a license. See

      P.L. 175-2002, § 8. The statute now contains permissive language and states

      that “[a] person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter

      to carry a handgun . . . .” I.C. § 35-47-2-1(b) (emphasis added). The General

      Assembly also added a new section, Indiana Code section 35-47-2-1.5, outlining

      the new crime of “unlawful carrying of a handgun.” This statute makes it either

      a Class A misdemeanor or a Level 5 felony for certain categories of people—

      such as people convicted of a state or federal offense punishable by a term of

      imprisonment exceeding one year, people convicted of domestic violence, and

      juveniles—to knowingly or intentionally carry a handgun.

[4]   A bench trial was held in December 2022, and the judge found Lawrence

      guilty. The case immediately proceeded to sentencing. Defense counsel noted

      that “the statute itself that [Lawrence] was just found guilty of is no longer law

      in the State of Indiana” and asked the court to “take[] that into consideration”

      when sentencing Lawrence. Tr. Vol. II p. 94. The judge sentenced Lawrence to

      180 days, with 8 days executed (time served) and 172 days suspended to non-

      reporting probation.

[5]   Lawrence now appeals.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023             Page 3 of 6
      Discussion and Decision
[6]   Lawrence admits that he carried a handgun without a license in October 2021

      and that he would be guilty under the version of the statute in effect then. See

      Appellant’s Br. p. 9. He argues, however, that the 2022 amendment to Section

      35-47-2-1 applies retroactively to him and therefore we should reverse his

      conviction. No appellate court has addressed whether the 2022 amendment

      applies retroactively.

[7]   Absent explicit language to the contrary, statutes generally do not apply

      retroactively. N.G. v. State, 148 N.E.3d 971, 973 (Ind. 2020). But there is a well-

      established exception for remedial statutes, that is, statutes intended to cure a

      defect or mischief in a prior statute. Id.; State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915, 919 (Ind.

      2005). “Yet even when the legislature passes such a law, retroactivity is

      permissive, not mandatory.” N.G., 148 N.E.3d at 973. We employ a two-step

      analysis to determine whether an otherwise prospective statute applies

      retroactively. “We first decide whether the relevant law is remedial. If so, we

      then consider whether retroactive application would effectuate the statute’s

      legislative purpose.” Id. at 974.

[8]   Two cases from our Supreme Court help to illustrate when a statute is remedial.

      In N.G., N.G. petitioned to expunge a felony conviction that had been reduced

      to a misdemeanor. Id. at 972. The relevant statute required N.G. to wait five

      years before seeking expungement. Id. However, the statute wasn’t clear on

      when that waiting period began. Id. The trial court—believing the relevant five

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023               Page 4 of 6
       years hadn’t elapsed—denied the petition. Id. While N.G.’s appeal was

       pending, the legislature amended the statute “to alleviate the confusion and

       made the change effective immediately.” Id. Under the updated version, N.G.’s

       expungement petition would have been granted. Id. Our Supreme Court held

       that the amendment was remedial because “it cured a mischief that existed in

       the prior statute, namely, confusion on when the waiting period begins for

       certain ex-offenders seeking expungement.” Id. at 975.

[9]    In the second case, Martin v. State, the question was whether Martin could

       receive credit for time served on home detention as a condition of his probation.

       774 N.E.2d 43, 44 (Ind. 2002). The relevant statutes were silent on the matter,

       and there was a conflict of authority on the issue in this Court. Id. at 44-45.

       While Martin’s appeal was pending, the legislature revised the statutes to

       explicitly provide probationers with home-detention credit. Id. at 44. Our

       Supreme Court held that the amendments were remedial:

               In light of the General Assembly’s response, we conclude that the
               amendments are remedial in nature as they were intended to cure
               a defect that existed in prior statutes, namely: silence concerning
               whether a defendant was entitled to credit for time served on
               home detention as a condition of probation.

       Id. at 45.

[10]   Here, Lawrence argues, without much analysis, that the 2022 amendment to

       Section 35-47-2-1 is remedial. See Appellant’s Br. p. 10. We disagree. The

       amendment was not intended to cure a defect in the statute. Before July 1,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023             Page 5 of 6
       2022, Section 35-47-2-1 required a license to carry a handgun; the amendment

       eliminated that requirement. Thus, the legislature reversed course on the license

       requirement, signaling a major change in Indiana’s policy on handguns. The

       amendment did not clear up any confusion in a statute, like in N.G., or address

       silence in a statute, like in Martin. And Lawrence doesn’t cite a single case to

       support his argument that the 2022 amendment is remedial. Because the 2022

       amendment to Section 35-47-2-1 is not remedial, it does not apply retroactively

       to Lawrence. We therefore affirm his conviction.

[11]   Affirmed.

       Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-6 | July 19, 2023             Page 6 of 6