Nathan Carl Gilbert v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 83
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Gilbert, incarcerated in Kentucky, was charged in Indiana with four counts of Class B felony burglary under the IAD.
- He pled guilty to all four counts on Jan 9, 2012; the court accepted the pleas and scheduled sentencing for Feb 21.
- Before sentencing, Gilbert was returned to Kentucky; a motion to dismiss under IAD Art. IV(e) was denied.
- The Governor of Kentucky approved Indiana’s request to return Gilbert to Indiana for a 48-hour sentencing window; he appeared with substitute counsel.
- The court sentenced Gilbert on March 28 to four consecutive ten-year terms with five years suspended; the stay invoked issues about notice and ability to prepare for sentencing.
- The court remanded to address due process concerns; on appeal, the convictions were affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing on due process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IAD anti-shuffling applies to sentencing | Gilbert argues post-plea transfer violated IAD’s anti-shuffling | Gilbert asserts the trial court misapplied IAD; sentencing is protected | IAD anti-shuffling not violated; sentencing not within protections; convictions affirmed |
| Whether due process denied Gilbert adequate notice and PSI review at sentencing | Gilbert lacked time to prepare and review PSI | Due process violated due to short Indiana stay preventing preparation | Due process violated; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Conn v. State, 831 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (de novo review of IAD issues on appeal)
- Painter v. State, 848 A.2d 692 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (sentencing not within ‘trial’ for IAD purposes)
- United States v. Coffman, 905 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1990) (sentencing not included in ‘trial’ under IAD)
- State v. Lewis, 422 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (anti-shuffling not violated when awaiting sentencing)
- People ex rel. Harrist v. Dalsheim, 442 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981) (anti-shuffling not violated when defendant returns before sentencing)
- Barnes v. Mich. Ct. App., 287 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980) (conviction/plea timing terminates IAD triggers; post-plea transfers not violative)
- Snyder v. State, 500 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. 1986) (trial court may reject guilty plea in certain circumstances)