Bryan A. Cox v. State of Indiana
38 N.E.3d 702
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bryan A. Cox was charged April 30, 2014 with two Class B felony counts of dealing in cocaine and with being a habitual offender.
- Jury found Cox guilty of one count of dealing in cocaine; he pleaded guilty to habitual offender enhancement.
- Sentencing occurred November 21, 2014; all parties (including Cox) agreed the habitual-offender statute in effect when the crime was committed applied.
- Trial court imposed 15 years for the dealing conviction (5 years suspended) and added a 10-year habitual-offender enhancement (the minimum under the pre-amendment statute).
- Cox appealed, arguing the doctrine of amelioration required application of the July 1, 2014 amended habitual-offender statute (which is more lenient and might have made him ineligible).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amelioration requires applying the post-July 1, 2014 amended habitual-offender statute at sentencing | State: the pre-amendment statute applies because crime and proceedings began before amendment and legislature excluded amelioration | Cox: sentencing occurred after amendment; amended statute is more lenient and either reduces enhancement or makes him ineligible | Court: Affirmed—Cox waived contemporaneous objection and, substantively, the legislature expressly barred amelioration for these statutory changes |
| Whether Cox preserved the amelioration claim for appeal | State: Cox agreed at sentencing to apply prior statute; no contemporaneous objection | Cox: argues amelioration applies despite not objecting | Court: Cox waived the claim by agreeing at sentencing, but court reached merits anyway |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) if amelioration not applied | State: sentence met statutory minimum under prior law | Cox: asks court to find sentence inappropriate | Court: Declined—sentence was the mandatory minimum under prior statute and not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hellums v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (explains doctrine of amelioration and that it applies only when legislature intended amended law to reach past defendants)
- Richards v. State, 681 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 1997) (discusses amelioration as basis for applying more lenient sentencing law)
- Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980) (earlier case regarding amelioration doctrine)
- Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve claim for appeal)