Court Opinion

ID: 9744390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:48.42262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.904997
License: Public Domain

MATTINGLY-MAY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result of this case, but write separately to address what I believe to be a misstatement in the majority opinion. The majority correctly notes Beck was sentenced to 365 days, or one year, which is the maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor. However, on page 5 of the opinion, the majority states “while sentenced to the maximum sentence of 365 days, [Beck] did not receive the maximum punishment of an executed sentence.” (Emphasis supplied.) Presumably, the majority so holds because Beck’s sentence was suspended and not ordered served while incarcerated.
I do not believe the novel concept of a “maximum punishment” separate and independent from a “maximum sentence” is helpful to or necessary for our analysis, and I believe such a concept is inconsistent with our prior decisions.
A 365-day sentence, whether suspended or served in the Department of Correction, is the “maximum sentence.” A year is still a year, and a sentence is still a sentence. A suspended sentence is one actually imposed but the execution of which is thereafter suspended. State v. Wright, 202 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Iowa 1972). Such a sentence is “a definite sentence postponed so that the defendant is not required to serve his time in prison unless he commits another crime or violates some court-imposed condition[.]” United States v. Gajdik, 292 F.3d 555, 558 (7th Cir.2002) (emphasis supplied). In addressing whether a defendant was subjected to double jeopardy when he received double punishment for the same offense, our supreme court recognized that “even the entry of judgment and the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment is additional punishment.” Thompson v. State, 259 Ind. 587, 592, 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind.1972), disapproved on other grounds in Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532, 382 N.E.2d 893 (1978). Whether Beck’s suspended sentence amounts to something less than “maximum punishment” does not change the fact she received the maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor.
I can find nothing in our case law that addresses, or even recognizes, a distinction between a maximum sentence with “maximum punishment” and a maximum sentence without “maximum punishment.” Rather, those few decisions that have used the phrase “maximum punishment” appear to use it as a less-precise synonym for “maximum sentence.” See, e.g., Buchanan, 767 N.E.2d at 973 (“Although maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the worst offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders that warrant the maximum punishment.”); Cloum v. State, 779 N.E.2d 84, 90 (Ind.Ct. App.2002) (same), citing Buchanan; Dowdell v. State, 166 Ind.App. 395, 401, 336 *524N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind.Ct.App.1976) (addressing amendment that “increased the maximum punishment for the crime of armed felony from twenty (20) years to thirty (30) years”)'.
I concur, however, in the result the majority reaches because even though Beck had no prior criminal history, I agree that her manifestation of “road rage” “should not be treated lightly.” Op. at 522.