Scott Hitch v. State of Indiana
24 N.E.3d 974
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hitch was convicted of class A misdemeanor Battery by a jury.
- The trial court determined Hitch committed a crime of domestic violence under IC 35-38-1-7.7, based on trial evidence.
- The DV finding implies Hitch cannot possess a firearm under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)).
- Hitch argued the DV finding increased punishment beyond the statutory maximum in violation of Blakely v. Washington.
- The court’s DV determination relied on whether Bruce was a cohabiting or similarly situated individual.
- On appeal, the court reversed the DV determination as Blakely-violative, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DV finding violated Blakely | Hitch argues the DV finding increases penalty beyond verdict. | State contends DV finding does not alter elements and is not a punishment under Blakely. | DV determination violated Blakely; reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (S. Ct. 2004) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (S. Ct. 2000) (base rule for sentencing beyond prescribed maximum)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (S. Ct. 2012) (fines treated like other penalties under Apprendi/Blakely)
- Goldsberry v. State, 821 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (domestic violence determination constitutes criminal punishment)
- Kazmier v. State, 863 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (domestic violence evidence can be an admission for Blakely purposes)
- Trusly v. State, 839 N.E.2d 923 (Ind. 2005) (enumerates Blakely sentencing framework)
- Warriner v. State, 435 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. 1982) (fundamental error standard is extremely narrow)