Harvey Stephens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A04-1612-CR-2927
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- In 2002 Harvey Stephens pleaded guilty to two Class D felonies (Theft and Attempted Theft) pursuant to a stipulated plea; sentencing was left to the trial court and the State agreed not to seek habitual-offender enhancement.
- A Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) had been ordered but probation requested a continuance because the PSI was incomplete; Stephens was absent (incarcerated in Ohio) and asked to be sentenced in absentia.
- At the February 27, 2002 sentencing hearing defense counsel did not object to proceeding, and the court proceeded despite the incomplete PSI and without providing the PSI to Stephens or his counsel sufficiently in advance.
- The trial court referred to and relied on a “Triple I” criminal-history report and other unverified sources not in evidence or the record, and imposed consecutive maximum sentences (3 years + 3 years).
- Stephens filed a belated appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2; the Court of Appeals considered whether the sentence was so dubious as to constitute fundamental error and warranted resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stephens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing conducted on an incomplete PSI and relying on unverified out-of-record materials constitutes fundamental error | Waived because defense counsel failed to object at sentencing | Sentence is fundamentally erroneous because defendant lacked opportunity to review or refute PSI and court relied on unverified criminal-history material | Reversed and remanded for resentencing: court found fundamental error due to reliance on unverified information and failure to furnish PSI in time |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. State, 567 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (describes fundamental-error doctrine as exception to contemporaneous-objection rule)
- Yates v. State, 429 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (PSI must contain accurate information and defendant must be allowed opportunity to refute it)
- Gilbert v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (defendant’s due-process rights violated when PSI was provided only on day of sentencing)