Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 2013No. 27A02-1212-CR-1012Published

1DissentRobb, Chief Judge

Because I believe that courts are limited to imposing sentences that are authorized by statute, rather than only being limited to sentences that are not prohibited by statute, I respectfully dissent.

I recognize that if this subject were more settled, we would not have the split within our court to which the majority refers regarding the availability of partially consecutive sentences. Nevertheless, I believe that sentencing is a creature of the legislature and that we are limited to sentences that have been expressly permitted by the legislature. See Cooper v. State, 831 N.E.2d 1247, 1252…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  2. Charles D. Scanio v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  3. Bish v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1981
  4. City of Bozeman v. CantuMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Glaze v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API