Ivan Jones v. State of Indiana
79 N.E.3d 911
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jones was convicted after a bench trial of Level 5 felony Battery and later admitted habitual-offender status; the trial court imposed 2 years for Battery plus a 3-year habitual-offender enhancement (total 5 years).
- At sentencing the court asked Jones’s counsel (not Jones personally) whether Jones wished to exercise allocution; counsel answered, “No.”
- Jones did not personally request to speak at sentencing and did not object at the hearing to the court’s procedure.
- Jones appealed, arguing the court erred by failing to ask him directly whether he wanted to make a statement (allocution).
- The majority held the court’s failure to ask Jones personally was fundamental error requiring reversal and a new sentencing hearing; the chief judge dissented, arguing waiver and distinguishing jury-waiver caselaw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court committed reversible error by asking counsel (not Jones) about allocution | Jones: court must ask defendant personally under I.C. § 35-38-1-5; counsel cannot waive allocution for defendant | State: Jones’s admission to habitual-offender status removed or waived allocution rights, and failure to object at sentencing is waiver; reversal would require showing fundamental error | Court: Jones retained statutory allocution right after bench trial; court erred by not asking Jones personally; error is fundamental and mandates reversal and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. State, 676 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. 1996) (history and purpose of allocution and judicial recognition of the right)
- Vicory v. State, 802 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. 2004) (allocution is a minimally invasive pre-sentencing right and describes its purpose)
- Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2007) (distinguishes allocution rights after guilty pleas and probation revocations; error may be harmless)
- Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (requires personal waiver for jury trial; courts should personally confirm waiver to avoid erroneous deprivation)
- Owens v. State, 69 N.E.3d 531 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court’s failure to advise defendant or counsel of allocution rights and to permit defendant to speak was denial of due process)
- Angleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. 1999) (discusses waiver of allocution when defendant does not object; relied on by dissent)
- United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1991) (describes allocution as minimally invasive and brief)