Floyd Carr v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 396
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Floyd Carr was convicted of murder for a 1999 offense and received a 55-year sentence on July 21, 2000 (45 years executed, 10 years probation).
- On July 10, 2014 Carr filed a motion to reduce or suspend his remaining sentence under Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17.
- The trial court denied the motion the same day, stating more than 365 days had passed since he began serving the sentence and prosecuting-attorney approval was required.
- Carr relied on the July 1, 2014 revision of § 35-38-1-17, which removed the prosecutorial-approval requirement for motions filed after 365 days.
- The State and trial court treated the pre-2014 version (which required prosecutorial approval) as controlling because Carr’s crime and proceedings began before the 2014 amendments took effect.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the 2014 amendment did not apply retroactively to Carr under Ind. Code § 1-1-5.5-21 and therefore the court lacked authority to modify his sentence without the prosecutor’s approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 amendment to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 applies to Carr's sentence modification motion | Carr: 2014 statute applies; it removes prosecutorial-approval requirement | State: Pre-2014 law controls because offense and proceedings predate amendment | Court: Pre-2014 law controls; amendment does not apply to Carr |
| Whether trial court erred by requiring prosecutorial approval to modify sentence | Carr: Court abused discretion by insisting on approval | State/Trial court: Approval required under prior statute | Court: No abuse of discretion; court correctly applied prior statute |
| Whether court abused discretion in denying the motion to modify sentence | Carr: Denial was erroneous under new statutory scheme | State: Denial proper under controlling law and lack of authority to act without approval | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether amelioration doctrine requires application of new law | Carr: Impliedly argues for benefit of new law | State: Legislature barred amelioration for these sections | Court: Legislature intended no amelioration; new law not retroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. State, 26 N.E.3d 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for sentence-modification motion and note that current § 35-38-1-17 did not apply in similar context)
- Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980) (discussing the doctrine of amelioration)