Court Opinion

ID: 9525184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:00:35.142584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:17.122610
License: Public Domain

MATHIAS, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in all but Part III.C of the majority opinion.
An “episode of criminal conduct” is defined by statute as “offenses or a connected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.” Ind. Code § 35 — 50—1—2(b) (1998). Here, Ratliff operated a vehicle while intoxicated and fled from a police officer who attempted to stop him. After he fell in his attempt to flee, a plastic bag containing marijuana was found on the ground beneath him.
The majority holds that the OVWI and resisting law enforcement convictions, each of which required a volitional act, are part of the same criminal episode but that “the possession of marijuana conviction is wholly separate, related only by the fact that the crime was discovered in the course of pursuing a fleeing drunk driver.” Op. at 434. The possession of marijuana offense, which does not require a volitional act, occurred at the same time and place as the other offenses. Nevertheless, the majority excludes the possession offense from the criminal episode because the marijuana was merely “discovered” at the time of the other offenses. Under the majority’s rationale, every possession offense, by virtue of its non-volitional nature, will never be part of any criminal episode. I believe such a result contravenes both the language and intent of the statute, although I fully acknowledge that there is no authority on the issue.
Ratliffs possession of marijuana was directly and inextricably connected to the other offenses, as the marijuana would never have been discovered had Ratliff not been driving while intoxicated. Because the three offenses are part of the same criminal episode and none of them are crimes of violence, I would remand with instructions to reduce the total sentence to four years.
■ In any event, I believe this area of sentencing law would benefit from clarification by our supreme court or by the General Assembly.