KARP v. STATE, 61 N.E.3d 271 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Number: ininco20161025231
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2016
Summary: On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32 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 cou
Summary: On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32 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 cour..
More
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 15A04-1601-CR-32
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.
Source: Leagle
