Victor Karp v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Victor Karp v. State of Indiana

61 N.E.3d 271, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 755, 2016 WL 6235734

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

Docket15S04-1610-CR-555

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.E.3d 271 (Victor Karp 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

Victor Karp v. State of Indiana, 61 N.E.3d 271, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 755, 2016 WL 6235734 (Ind. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After declining to plead guilty and receive a sentence capped at twenty years, Victor Karp was convicted by a jury of Level 4 felony burglary and was found to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Karp to an aggregate term of twenty-four years. Karp appealed, contending among other things that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Specifically, Karp argued the trial court sentenced Karp more harshly because he exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Karp’s conviction and sentence. Karp v. State, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32, 2016 WL 3960113 (Ind.Ct.App.2016). In so doing, the court found Karp’s sentencing argument “specious and not supported by cogent reasoning.” Id. at *3. While we agree with our colleagues’ ultimate resolution of the sentencing issue and the case as a whole, we do not share their assessment of Karp’s sentencing argument. Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), with the exception of the above-quoted passage, which is hereby vacated.

RUSH, C.J., and RUCKER and DAVID, JJ., concur. MASSA and SLAUGHTER, JJ., concur in result.

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

PER CURIAM.

After declining to plead guilty and receive a sentence capped at twenty years, Victor Karp was convicted by a jury of Level 4 felony burglary and was found to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Karp to an aggregate term of twenty-four years. Karp appealed, contending among other things that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Specifically, Karp argued the trial court sentenced Karp more harshly because he exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Karp’s conviction and sentence. Karp v. State, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32, 2016 WL 3960113 (Ind.Ct.App.2016). In so doing, the court found Karp’s sentencing argument “specious and not supported by cogent reasoning.” Id. at *3. While we agree with our colleagues’ ultimate resolution of the sentencing issue and the case as a whole, we do not share their assessment of Karp’s sentencing argument. Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), with the exception of the above-quoted passage, which is hereby vacated.

RUSH, C.J., and RUCKER and DAVID, JJ., concur. MASSA and SLAUGHTER, JJ., concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E.3d 271, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 755, 2016 WL 6235734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-karp-v-state-of-indiana-ind-2016.