Robert L. Slone v. State of Indiana
11 N.E.3d 969
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Between Dec. 17, 2012 and May 4, 2013 Robert L. Slone committed three separate burglaries in DeKalb County (Dec. 17, Apr. 23, May 4).
- The State charged Slone in two separate causes with multiple burglary, theft, and receiving-stolen-property counts and alleged habitual-offender status.
- Slone pled guilty to three Class C felony burglary counts (one in Cause No. FC-13; two in Cause No. FB-15); other charges were dismissed under the plea agreement.
- Sentencing was left to the trial court; the court imposed eight years on each count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate 24-year term.
- Slone appealed, arguing the burglaries arose from a single episode of criminal conduct (which would limit consecutive exposure), or at least that two of the burglaries were a single episode, and therefore his aggregate sentence was excessive or unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three burglaries arose from a single episode of criminal conduct for sentencing limits | State: offenses were distinct events separated in time and not a single episode | Slone: crimes were closely related in time/place/circumstance and thus a single episode, capping consecutive exposure | Court: not a single episode — offenses were separated (months/weeks) and not simultaneous; consecutive sentences lawful |
| Whether April 23 and May 4 burglaries constituted a single episode | State: they are separate incidents despite temporal proximity | Slone: the two later burglaries were close enough in time to be a single episode, reducing aggregate cap | Court: temporal proximity alone insufficient; the April and May incidents were distinct and not contemporaneous |
| Whether joinder of charges by the State proves a single episode for sentencing | State: joinder was for trial efficiency based on modus operandi, not an admission of single episode | Slone: State’s joinder motion indicates a single scheme or episode | Court: joinder standards differ from sentencing "episode" analysis; joinder does not prove a single episode |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences | State: sentencing discretion and statutory framework support consecutive sentences here | Slone: consecutive aggregate exceeds statutory cap if offenses are a single episode or some are grouped | Court: no abuse of discretion; sentencing within statutory authority given offenses were not a single episode |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. 2006) (explains "episode of criminal conduct" rule and limits on consecutive sentences)
- O'Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2001) (guidance on when offenses are so interrelated that one charge cannot be described without the other)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses focus on timing and contemporaneity in "episode" analysis)
- Craig v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. 2000) (joinder based on common modus operandi; distinction between joinder and sentencing analysis)
- Dixon v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (refuses to conflate "single scheme or plan" joinder analysis with "episode of criminal conduct" for sentencing)