Samuel L. Hobbs, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 43
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In June 2005 Hobbs forcibly entered L.M.’s home and committed sexual assaults; police and 911 callers corroborated her screams and calls for help.
- A jury convicted Hobbs of residential entry (Class D felony), battery with bodily injury (Class A misdemeanor), and criminal deviate conduct (Class B felony); he received an aggregate 23-year sentence.
- Hobbs pursued direct appeal and post-conviction relief; both were unsuccessful. His Appellate Rule 7(B) challenge to sentence was rejected on direct appeal.
- On July 23, 2014, Hobbs petitioned to modify his sentence under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(c) (2014), which allows reduction after 365 days; the trial court denied the petition on August 11, 2014.
- Hobbs argued the 2014 amendment applied to him and raised additional claims (double jeopardy, proportionality, Rule 7(B)); the trial court rejected the modification and Hobbs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held the 2014 statute does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the new code, and ruled Hobbs’s other claims were unavailable in a sentence-modification petition or waived/res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hobbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying sentence-modification petition | Trial court correctly denied because the amended § 35-38-1-17(c) does not apply retroactively; petition properly denied | The 2014 amendment permitting sentence modification should apply to him and permit reduction | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; new statute not applicable to pre‑enactment offenses |
| Whether Hobbs may raise double jeopardy, proportionality, or Rule 7(B) claims in the modification proceeding | These issues are not cognizable in a § 35-38-1-17 petition and were or should have been raised earlier | Such constitutional and proportionality claims can be considered now to support modification | Held not available in this proceeding; claims waived or res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2010) (standard of review for sentence‑modification decisions is abuse of discretion)
- Myers v. State, 718 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing context)
- Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008) (the sentencing statute in effect at time of offense governs)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (issues known and available on direct appeal are waived if not raised; adverse rulings are res judicata)
- Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Legislature intended new criminal code not to affect proceedings for offenses committed before enactment)