Kocielko v. State
943 N.E.2d 1282
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kocielko sought rehearing of a prior decision vacating his conviction for Sexual Misconduct with a Minor as a Class C felony and addressing related sentencing.
- The State sought rehearing and urged reconsideration of the sentencing framework, including double jeopardy and multiple-sentencing principles.
- The court granted rehearing and affirmed the trial court’s judgment except for the 30-year habitual offender enhancement.
- The previous decision treated interruptions in jury verdicts and the possibility of retrial across two counts under double jeopardy principles.
- Bowling v. State’s single-incident sentencing rule was discussed as persuasive, though its current applicability was debated.
- The court ultimately concluded concurrent sentences best reflect the episodic nature of the crimes, and vacated the 30-year habitual enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial on unresolved counts complies with double jeopardy | State: retrial on the two unresolved counts complies with double jeopardy. | Kocielko: retrial should be barred under double jeopardy principles. | Retrial permissible; decision maintained except for habitual enhancement. |
| Whether sentencing should be concurrent rather than consecutive to reflect episodic harms | State: consecutive sentences may be appropriate for separate harms. | Kocielko: episodic nature supports ordering concurrent sentences. | Concurrent sentences affirmed as reflecting episodic nature. |
| Whether the habitual offender enhancement may be imposed on multiple underlying convictions | State: enhancements may be placed on multiple underlying felonies. | Kocielko: cannot apply enhancement to more than one underlying conviction. | Vacate the 30-year habitual enhancement; may place enhancement on one underlying conviction only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (discussed double jeopardy and multiple sentences; held retrial permissible on unresolved counts; later modified on habitual enhancement)
- Bowling v. State, 560 N.E.2d 658 (Ind.1990) (sentencing for episodic nature of crimes; single-incident analysis not clearly overruled)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (double jeopardy framework guiding retrial analysis)
- Emery v. State, 717 N.E.2d 111 (Ind.1999) (discussed limitations and context of double jeopardy principles)
- Beno v. State, 581 N.E.2d 922 (Ind.1991) (episodes of conduct; sentencing considerations for multiple crimes)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind.2003) (consecutive sentences may be necessary for separate harms)
- Davis v. State, 843 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (habits-on-one, not-on-both; limitation on placement of habitual enhancement)
- Ward v. State, 736 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (footnote observing Supreme Court rejection of Bowling’s single-incident analysis)