Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals
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
- Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Charles D. Scanio v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Bish v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Bozeman v. CantuMontana Supreme Court · 2013
- Glaze v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.