Saintignon v. State

749 N.E.2d 1134, 2001 Ind. LEXIS 536, 2001 WL 723168
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 2001
Docket18S02-0106-CR-308
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 749 N.E.2d 1134 (Saintignon v. State) 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
Saintignon v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1134, 2001 Ind. LEXIS 536, 2001 WL 723168 (Ind. 2001).

Opinion

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Defendant Danny Lee Saintignon, Jr., appeals from a three-year sentence imposed following his guilty plea for Residential Entry. We affirm the analysis of the Court of Appeals that the trial court adequately explained the reasons for imposing an enhanced sentence. But we agree with Defendant that his juvenile record did not prevent the trial court from suspending a portion of the sentence in excess of the minimum.

Background

Defendant Danny Saintignon pled guilty to the charge of Residential Entry, a Class D felony, 1 on October 15, 1999. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a three-year term of imprisonment, the maximum sentence authorized by the Legislature for a Class D felony, on January 20, 2000. 2

Defendant appeals his sentence on two grounds. First, he contends that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements for enhancing a presumptive sentence because it did not sufficiently explain its reasoning for the enhancement. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention in its decision in this case. Saintignon v. State, 734 N.E.2d 711, 714-16 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion on this claim. See Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). 3

Second, Defendant contends that the trial court incorrectly concluded that it had no authority to suspend any portion of the maximum sentence for Residential Entry because of Defendant’s extensive juvenile record. (R. at 48-49.) The Court of Appeals agreed. See Saintignon, 734 N.E.2d at 716. We grant transfer to address this issue.

Discussion

In this case, Defendant pled guilty in adult criminal court to the felony of Residential Entry. Defendant had previously accumulated an extensive juvenile record. When an adult who has a prior juvenile record is convicted of a crime, how does that prior juvenile record affect the trial court’s authority to suspend the sentence? That is the question presented by this case.

The Legislature has adopted a statute, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-2, which permits trial court judges to suspend the sentences of adult offenders. We will refer to this statute as the “General Suspension Statute.” The. General Suspension Statute restricts a trial court’s authority to suspend a sentence when the offender has been convicted of certain specified offenses or has a prior adult criminal record of a specified nature. A separate statute, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-2.1, restricts a trial court’s authority to suspend a sentence when the offender has a prior juvenile record of a specified nature. We will refer to this statute as the “Juvenile Record Suspension Statute.” This case requires us to *1136 interpret the interrelationship of the General Suspension Statute and Juvenile Record Suspension Statute.

We set forth the text of the General Suspension Statute 4 and the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute 5 in the accompa *1137 nying footnotes. It is clear that these two statutes are closely related. Not only do they follow each other in the Indiana Code (as noted, one is section 2 and the other section 2.1 of the same chapter), but the General Suspension Statute cross-references the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute and the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute cross-references the General Suspension Statute twice.

Our interpretation of these provisions utilizes two rules commonly employed in construing statutes. First, “[wjhere statutes address the same subject, they are in pari materia, and we harmonize them if possible.” United States Gypsum, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., 735 N.E.2d 790, 802 (Ind.2000). See also Smith v. State, 675 N.E.2d 693, 696 (Ind.1996). Second, “[i]n construing a statute, effect should be given to every word and clause therein.” Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind.1993). See also In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 38 (Ind.1991).

Starting with the General Suspension Statute, subsection (a) sets forth the general rule that a court may suspend any part of the sentence for a felony, subject to restrictions imposed by either the General Suspension Statute itself or the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute. Subsection (b) of the General Suspension Statute sets forth two categories of restrictions. 6 The first, contained in subdivisions (l)-(3), restrict the court’s authority to suspend a sentence where the person has a prior adult criminal record of a specified nature. We will refer to an offender who falls into this category as having a “disqualifying adult record.” The second category, contained in clause (4), restrict the court’s authority to suspend a sentence where the person has been convicted of a specific (extremely serious) offense. We will refer to an offender who falls into this category as having committed a “disqualifying adult offense.”

It is extremely important to understand that the consequence of being an offender with a disqualifying adult record or who has committed a disqualifying adult offense is that the court may suspend only that part of the sentence that is in excess of the minimum sentence. Said differently, even when faced with a disqualifying adult record or a disqualifying adult offense, the court may still suspend that part of the sentence that is in excess of the minimum sentence.

Turning to the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute, we see that its subsection (a) *1138 is very similar to the disqualifying adult record provisions of subdivisions (l)-(3) of subsection (b) of the General Suspension Statute. It restricts the court’s authority to suspend a sentence where the person has a prior juvenile record of a specified nature. We will refer to a person in this category as having a “disqualifying juvenile record.”

The opening sentence of subsection (a) of the Juvenile Record Suspension Statute reads: “Except as provided in subsection (b) or section 2 of this chapter [the General Suspension Statute], the court may not suspend a sentence for a felony for a person with a juvenile record when” that person has a disqualifying juvenile record. Ind.Code § 33-50-2-2.1(a) (1998).

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

Related

A.J. v. Logansport State Hospital
956 N.E.2d 96 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2011)
Januchowski v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District
905 N.E.2d 1041 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2009)
State v. Whitney
889 N.E.2d 823 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2008)
Woodward v. State
798 N.E.2d 260 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2003)
Brown v. State
790 N.E.2d 1061 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2003)
Simmons v. State
773 N.E.2d 823 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2002)
Ashley v. State
757 N.E.2d 1037 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
749 N.E.2d 1134, 2001 Ind. LEXIS 536, 2001 WL 723168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saintignon-v-state-ind-2001.