Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. LEXIS 637
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Dye was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF) and a habitual-offender enhancement.
- SVF status relied on a 1998 attempted battery with a deadly weapon conviction.
- Habitual-offender status relied on a 1998 handgun-within-1000-feet conviction and a 1993 forgery conviction.
- Dye pled guilty to the SVF offense and moved to dismiss the habitual-offender allegation.
- A two-day jury trial found Dye to be a habitual offender and the court imposed a 30-year habitual-enhancement added to a then-max SVF sentence, totaling 50 years (later amended).
- Court of Appeals affirmed the double-enhancement ruling; this Court granted transfer and held the enhancement unconstitutional, vacating the habitual-enhender and affirming the SVF conviction and its sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double enhancement of SVF to habitual offender | Dye argues it is impermissible to stack enhancements | State contends explicit legislative direction permits the double enhancement | Vacated the 30-year habitual enhancement |
| Batson challenge mootness | Batson challenge merits review | Issue moot due to double-enhancement ruling | Moot; Batson claim dismissed as to this case |
| Appropriateness of executed sentence after reversal | Original 50-year term was excessive | Standard maximum for SVF is 20 years; review confirms 20-year executed term | Executed term of 20 years affirmed; remand for entry of 20-year sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 2007) (general rule against double enhancements for progressive penalties; SVF applied here)
- Downey v. State, 770 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. 2002) (explicit legislative direction required for certain enhancements; classifying by specialized statutes)
- Ross v. State, 729 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. 2000) (double enhancement analysis with progressive penalty vs. another statute)
- Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2010) (illustrates when explicit direction exists to permit double enhancement)
- Stanek v. State, 603 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 1992) (discusses limits on double enhancements)
- Conrad v. State, 747 N.E.2d 575 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (comparison between SVF and handgun statutes in double-enhancement context)