Sanjari v. State
2012 Ind. LEXIS 17
Ind.2012Background
- Defendant Amir H. Sanjari failed to pay child support for two daughters; arrears exceeded $15,000.
- A jury convicted four counts: two class D nonsupport and two class C nonsupport based on the aggregate arrearage.
- The trial court entered judgment only on the two class C felonies.
- Court of Appeals vacated one class C conviction but affirmed the others; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Court held that the class C enhancement is aggregate for all dependent children and cannot double-enhance multiple D convictions for the same arrearage.
- The case is remanded to enter one Class C and one Class D conviction based on the aggregate arrearage and to resentence accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Class C enhancement apply to each child or only once for aggregate arrearage? | State argues discrete $15,000 portions may justify multiple Class C enhancements. | Sanjari argues aggregation governs; only one enhancement possible per aggregate arrearage. | Enhancement is aggregate; cannot double-enhance multiple D convictions. |
| Does Class C nonsupport depend on underlying Class D, and can multiple Class C convictions be sustained for one arrearage? | State contends multiple children could each trigger separate enhancements. | Sanjari contends only one enhancement allowed by aggregation. | Class C is an enhancement of the D offense; aggregation limits to a single enhancement per arrearage. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Land, 688 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (aggregation concerns and construction of nonsupport statute (arrested arrearage as enhancement basis))
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double punishment concerns; prohibits enhancements for the same harm without explicit directive)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (general rules on avoiding multiple punishments and statutory interpretation)
- Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 2007) (general rule against double enhancements absent clear legislative direction)
- Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2010) (reaffirmed limits on multiple sentencing enhancements)