Court Opinion

ID: 9738347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:50:48.585887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.514250
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
Prentice, J.
I concur with the majority except as to its determination upon the issue of the alteration of the sentence of the defendant Irvin. Upon this issue, I would remand with instructions to reinstate the original sentence, fine and suspension, omitting, however, the provision for serving a penal farm sentence in lieu of the fine. The sentence was improper only insofar as it provided for the penal farm sentence. In this respect it was unlawful and subject to correction. This, however, did not authorize an alteration or revision of that portion that was clearly lawful. The sentence of imprisonment was according to law, as was the suspension thereof. The action of the trial judge in “correcting” the sentence, insofar as it affected the suspension of the sentence, amounted to a revocation of the suspension. There having been no specific condition attached to the suspension it was a suspension pending good behavior; and we recently held that such a suspension may be revoked only upon a prior determination of guilt with respect to another crime. State of Indiana ex rel. Gash v. Morgan County Superior Court (1972), 258 Ind. 485, 283 N. E. 2d 349.
DeBruler, J., concurs.
Note.—Reported in 291 N. E. 2d 70.