James E. Dunn v. State of Indiana

694 N.E.2d 723, 1998 Ind. LEXIS 54
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 6, 1998
Docket47S04-9801-PC-7
StatusPublished

This text of 694 N.E.2d 723 (James E. Dunn v. State of Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James E. Dunn v. State of Indiana, 694 N.E.2d 723, 1998 Ind. LEXIS 54 (Ind. 1998).

Opinion

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

SULLIVAN, Justice.

In accordance 'with our decision today in State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind.1998), we conclude that the new rule of law announced in Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 293, 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996), is not retroactive under Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind.1990), and so does not entitle Martin Peterson to post-conviction relief.

On two occasions in June, 1993, Martin Peterson (“Peterson”) sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. On August 25, 1993, the Indiana Department of Revenue issued Peterson a warrant for payment of a Controlled Substance Excise Tax (“CSET”), 1 which was reduced to a money judgment on October 4, 1993. On November 8, 1993, the State charged Peterson with two counts of delivering cocaine. 2 Peterson pled guilty to one charge on October 15, 1994, and paid the CSET on March 6,1995.

On March 6, 1996, Peterson filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief based on this Court’s decision in Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (holding that because CSET is punishment, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars criminal prosecution for the underlying drug offense after CSET has been assessed). The post-conviction court denied Peterson’s petition for relief. Peterson appealed.

The Court of Appeals retroactively applied the Bryant holding and reversed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Peterson v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1290 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

Having granted transfer, we now vacate the Court of Appeals opinion pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3) and affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief for the reasons set forth in State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind.1998), also decided today.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.
1

. Ind.Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to-17 (Supp.1992).

2

. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-1 (1988 & Supp.1990).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Mohler
694 N.E.2d 1129 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1998)
Bryant v. State
660 N.E.2d 290 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1996)
Daniels v. State
561 N.E.2d 487 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1990)
Peterson v. State
689 N.E.2d 1290 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
694 N.E.2d 723, 1998 Ind. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-dunn-v-state-of-indiana-ind-1998.