Sanjari v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 162
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sanjari, a nuclear physicist, failed to pay court-ordered child support for two children and fled across multiple states to avoid an arrest warrant; he was extradited from California to Indiana and jailed awaiting trial.
- During pretrial and trial, Sanjari asserted self-representation, filed numerous pro se motions, and rejected standby counsel; the court appointed standby counsel and later a guardian ad litem (GAL) that he sought to remove.
- On trial day, Sanjari refused to attend, was ill per jail nurses, and the trial proceeded in absentia with standby counsel present; the jury convicted him on four counts of felony nonsupport.
- The trial court merged two class D counts into two class C counts and sentenced Sanjari to two consecutive five-year terms; he moved to correct error, leading to appellate review.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated Count II (one of the class C counts) on double jeopardy grounds, while affirming Count I and the accompanying sentence, along with restitution, costs, and fines, and remanded for writs consistent with the opinion.
- Additional factual context includes that Sanjari had previously been allowed to proceed pro se, sought admission for out-of-state counsel (Amini), and the court denied several continuance requests based on those admission issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial in absentia violated Sanjari's rights | Sanjari argues absence was involuntary due to illness and should be treated as newly discovered evidence for a new trial | State contends absence was voluntary waiver after considering health status and conduct | Trial in absentia affirmed as voluntary waiver based on record |
| Whether denial of second continuance for counsel was error | Sanjari contends right to counsel of choice was violated by denial | Court acted within discretion; Amini admission failed; standby counsel available | No reversible error; court acted within its discretion |
| Whether double jeopardy requires vacating one of two class C counts | Two class C counts punished same offense since one in gross arrearage; multiple punishment improper | Each count testified separate elements; valid to convict both | Vacate Count II; affirm Count I; no double jeopardy for having distinct elements in theory but app ruled on one offense with one arrearage |
| Whether sentence, restitution, fines, and costs were properly imposed | Challenge to treatment of indigency; argues harsher than appropriate given circumstances | Court acted within discretion; indigency hearing not required for non-due fines/restoration; post-sentencing indigency hearing conducted | Affirmed as to sentencing results; restitution and costs upheld; indigency procedures cured by post-sentencing hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 868 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2007) (right to be present at trial and waiver by absence considerations)
- Soliz v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (opportunity to explain absence and rebut presumed waiver)
- Adams v. State, 509 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.1987) (absence can be deemed voluntary when jail staff transport is refused)
- Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind.2002) (review of motion to correct error for abuse of discretion)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (applies standard for reviewing sentencing and mitigating factors)