Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. LEXIS 261
| Ind. | 2014Background
- In 1995 Bryant E. Wilson was convicted of two class A felonies (rape; criminal deviate conduct) and one class B felony (armed robbery) and sentenced to 45 years for each class A and 20 years for the class B.
- The trial court ordered the two 45-year sentences to run concurrent, and the 20-year robbery sentence split so 15 years ran concurrent and 5 years consecutive, producing a 50-year aggregate term.
- In 2012 Wilson filed a pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence, arguing the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose a partially concurrent/partially consecutive (hybrid) sentence for a single count.
- The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. This Court granted transfer to resolve whether a trial court may impose a partially consecutive (hybrid) sentence.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held hybrid (partially consecutive/partially concurrent for a single conviction) sentences are not authorized by statute and remanded for resentencing, limiting the court on remand to an aggregate not exceeding the original 50-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may split a single count’s sentence so part runs concurrent and part runs consecutive (a "partially consecutive" or hybrid sentence). | State: statute contemplates only concurrent or consecutive terms for a sentence on one count; hybrid sentences are not authorized. | Wilson: the sentencing order is permissible or, alternatively, that the already-concurrent portion is fully executed so his remaining exposure is less. | Court held hybrid/partially consecutive sentences are not authorized by the sentencing statutes and are impermissible. |
| Whether Wilson is entitled to resentencing because his sentence was unauthorized. | State: original aggregate complied with statutory cap so relief unnecessary. | Wilson: sentence was facially erroneous because it imposed a partially consecutive term. | Court held the sentence was unauthorized and vacated the denial of the motion to correct; remanded for resentencing. |
| Scope of resentencing—whether the court on remand may exceed the original aggregate. | State: original aggregate (50 years) was lawful cap and should bound resentencing. | Wilson/Amici: resentencing should result in full concurrency (45 years) because the 15-year concurrent robbery term has been executed. | Court held resentencing cannot exceed the original 50-year aggregate; court may fashion lawful arrangement of concurrent and consecutive terms but not use a hybrid split. |
| Whether common practice of mixing some counts concurrent and others consecutive remains permissible. | State: such practices are consistent with statute when whole-count sentences are designated concurrent or consecutive. | Amici argued only two alternatives—all concurrent or all consecutive—would be facially authorized. | Court held courts may impose some counts concurrent and some consecutive (whole-count choices), but may not split an individual count’s term between concurrent and consecutive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laux v. State, 821 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2005) (sentencing statutes control what a court may impose; no-contact order not authorized for executed sentence)
- Hull v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (reversing partially consecutive sentences as not authorized by statute)
- Dragon v. State, 774 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (sentence imposed without statutory authority is facially defective and subject to correction)
- Hicks v. State, 729 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2000) (resentencing limitations when original sentence imposed under wrong statute)
- Sales v. State, 723 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 2000) (statutes should be applied logically to avoid absurd results)
- Smith v. State, 675 N.E.2d 693 (Ind. 1996) (construction of amended sentencing provisions against the State where statutory amendments conflicted)