Kevin M. Dolick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1701-CR-21
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Undercover officer conducted three controlled buys of methamphetamine from Kevin M. Dolick in Sept. 2015; during the first buy Dolick produced and placed a revolver on his lap while selecting a bag of meth.
- State charged Dolick with multiple counts including Level 3 dealing in methamphetamine, various possession/dealing counts, carrying a handgun without a license, and using a firearm in a controlled substance offense (enhancement).
- On Nov. 21, 2016, Dolick pleaded guilty to Level 3 dealing in methamphetamine and to the firearm-in-controlled-substance enhancement; remaining counts were dismissed per the plea agreement.
- Trial court sentenced Dolick to six years for the Level 3 felony, enhanced by three years for the firearm enhancement (aggregate nine years, three years suspended to probation).
- On appeal Dolick argued the three-year firearm enhancement violated the double jeopardy clause of the Indiana Constitution as an impermissible double punishment for the same conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3-year firearm enhancement constituted double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution | State: sentence lawful under plea agreement and enhancement statute | Dolick: enhancement punished the same firearm conduct already factored into elevation of the dealing offense, violating Richardson actual-evidence test | Court held claim waived by guilty plea; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (announcing actual-evidence test for same-offense double jeopardy analysis)
- Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81 (Ind. 2008) (discussing double-enhancement jurisprudence versus double jeopardy)
- Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2002) (guilty pleas waive numerous appellate challenges, including some constitutional claims)
- Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2001) (defendant who pleads guilty cannot later challenge convictions as duplicative)
- Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996) (pleading guilty restricts ability to challenge conviction on direct appeal)