Legal Opinion · Dissent

Austin v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 18, 1992No. 49A04-9201-CR-1Published

1DissentMiller, Judge

I respectfully dissent on Issue III. The robbery and attempted robbery convictions coupled with the confinement convictions violate the federal and state protections against double jeopardy. Here, the force necessary for the commission of the robbery was coexistent with the confinement of the victims in the apartment. I would remand to the trial court for resentencing and order the court to vacate the convictions for confinement.

Austin entered the apartment and declared his intentions to rob the occupants. Accordingly, he assumed control of the occupants, took items of value, and escaped. The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. People v. EstesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Hansford v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Stwalley v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Bowling v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1990

8 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