State of Indiana v. Frank Greene
16 N.E.3d 416
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Greene was convicted at bench trial of class B felony criminal confinement after a two-day November 2008 incident.
- Greene argued ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for not citing Long v. State to challenge sufficiency of evidence.
- Post-conviction court reduced Greene’s class B to class D confinement, citing Long’s interpretation, and resentenced him accordingly.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the reduction; the State sought review in the Indiana Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held Long does not control this case; evidence supported a class B conviction and counsel did not render ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the counsel’s failure to cite Long constitute ineffective assistance? | Greene | State | No; Long does not control Greene’s case. |
| Does Long require sufficiency of proof that serious bodily injury occurred during removal to sustain class B confinement? | Greene | State | Long is not controlling; evidence supported removal plus serious bodily injury. |
| Should Long compel reducing a class B conviction to class D based on evidentiary distinctions? | Greene | State | No; Long does not require reduction here. |
| Is the State required to prove serious bodily injury occurred during forcible removal for confinement by removal? | Greene | State | No; the proper standard links injury to the charged offense, not the timing of removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 743 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2001) (reaffirmed that the charged offense requires sufficient evidence of all elements, including the role of force and resultant injury.)
- Redman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. 2001) (held that injuries must be linked to the charged offense of confinement by removal.)
- Carter v. State, 766 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. 2002) (illustrated force can be a conduit for removal of the victim.)
- State v. Evans, 810 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. 2004) (presumed logical application of statute language to avoid absurd results.)
- Young v. State, 725 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 2000) (robbery requires force to effect taking; absence of force reduces robbery to theft.)
- Spaulding v. Int’l Bakers Servs., Inc., 550 N.E.2d 307 (Ind. 1990) (interpretation to give effect to every word of a statute.)