Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
988 N.E.2d 1221
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wilson was convicted in 1996 of class A felony rape, class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and class B felony robbery.
- He was sentenced to concurrent 45-year terms on the A counts and a 20-year B count, with 15 years concurrent and 5 years consecutive, for a 50-year aggregate.
- He pursued multiple post-conviction and sentence-modification petitions prior to 2012.
- In November 2012, Wilson filed a pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence alleging lack of statutory authority to hold part of his sentence in abeyance.
- The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed, holding the sentence facially valid and citing unsettled law on partially consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is erroneous on its face regarding partial abeyance/consecutive structure | Wilson argues lack of statutory authority for partially consecutive terms | Crone argues sentence not erroneous; statutes permit partial aggregation given lack of explicit prohibition | Sentence not erroneous on its face; affirmed |
| Whether partially consecutive sentences are authorized by statute | Wilson asserts no express statutory authorization for partially consecutive sentences | Hull/ Merida debate shows unsettled authority; no clear prohibition in 1996 statutes | Authority uncertain but majority finds no facial error; affirmance on the basis of existing framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004) (facially evident sentencing errors may be corrected under IC 85-38-1-15; post‑conviction relief separate)
- Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1991) (statutory-based correction process for sentencing defects)
- Hull v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (partially consecutive sentences discussed (statutory view unsettled))
- Merida v. State, 977 N.E.2d 406 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (disagrees with Hull on partial consecutives; statute posture noted)
- Bish v. State, 421 N.E.2d 608 (Ind.1981) (authorized by statute as standard for reviewing sentences)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 46 (U.S.2010) (legislature’s failure to prohibit does not imply approval of practice)