Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Saylor v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 2002No. 48S00-9712-PD-647Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Justice

I agree with the majority's analysis and conclusion that Saylor is not entitled to *569post-conviction relief from his conviction for murder. I disagree, however, with its analysis and conclusion that the Indiana capital murder and sentencing scheme complies in all respects with the requirements of the Supreme Court's recent Ap-prendi decision.1 I believe that in most cases, our death penalty statute does not violate Apprendi. But contrary to the majority's view, I believe that in certain cases in which the jury recommends either a term of years or makes no sentencing recommendation and the judge…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Zant v. StephensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

17 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