Billy Stacy Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 08 2017, 8:32 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jack Quirk Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Billy Stacy Jr., February 8, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A02-1608-CR-1829 v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John M. Feick, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 18C04-1412-F3-2

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary and Issues [1] Following a jury trial, Billy Stacy Jr. was convicted of rape, criminal

confinement, battery, strangulation, and theft. He was also found to be an

habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Stacy to an aggregate sentence of

sixty-two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Stacy

appeals his sentence, raising two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial

court abused its discretion in sentencing him, and (2) whether his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. However,

we find an issue raised sua sponte to be dispositive: whether the trial court

improperly sentenced Stacy. Concluding Stacy’s sentence exceeds statutory

authority, we reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Late in the evening on December 15, 2014, Stacy joined friends, including

K.W., at a local bar and later returned to K.W.’s home where K.W. became

extremely intoxicated. K.W. fell asleep and awoke to discover Stacy standing

at the foot of the bed. Stacy then jumped on, struck, choked, and raped K.W.

Thereafter, Stacy fled the home and stole a vehicle.

[3] On December 23, 2014, the State charged Stacy with rape as a Level 3 felony,

criminal confinement as a Level 3 felony, battery as a Level 5 felony,

strangulation as a Level 6 felony, and theft as a Level 6 felony. The State also Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 2 of 4 alleged he was an habitual offender. A jury found Stacy guilty as charged. The

trial court then sentenced Stacy to an aggregate sentence of sixty-two years

executed. Relevant here, the trial court sentenced Stacy to twenty years for the

rape conviction and enhanced that sentence by eighteen years due to Stacy’s

status as an habitual offender. Stacy now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision [4] We sua sponte address the legality of Stacy’s sentence. “A sentence that is

contrary to or violative of a penalty mandated by statute is illegal in the sense

that it is without statutory authorization. A sentence that exceeds statutory

authority constitutes fundamental error.” Reffett v. State, 844 N.E.2d 1072, 1073

(Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations omitted) (reversing and remanding to the trial

court for resentencing after sua sponte discovering the trial court imposed an

illegal sentence). Here, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on the

crime of rape as a Level 3 felony. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-5(b)(2)

provides a person who commits a Level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed

term of between three and sixteen years, with the advisory sentence being nine

years. In sentencing Stacy for rape as a Level 3 felony, the trial court ordered

Stacy to serve twenty years, four years above the maximum sentence for a Level

3 felony. Therefore, Stacy’s sentence is in excess of statutory authority.

Because Stacy’s sentence for rape is illegal and the trial court enhanced this

sentence due to Stacy’s habitual offender status, we reverse the sentence and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 3 of 4 remand this case for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion. For these

reasons, we need not address the merits of Stacy’s claims. See id. at 1073 n.3.

Conclusion [5] The trial court improperly sentenced Stacy because it imposed a sentence

exceeding statutory authority. Stacy’s sentence is therefore reversed and we

remand to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.

[6] Reversed and remanded.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 4 of 4