Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JEFFREY D. STONEBRAKER Chief Public Defender Jeffersonville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MAUREEN ANN BARTOLO Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GLENN SWIFT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 10A01-0610-CR-446

APPEAL FROM THE CLARK SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Cecile Blau, Judge Cause No. 10D02-0409-FB-440

June 29, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Glenn Eugene Swift, Jr., appeals his sentence for dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony. 1 We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Swift was charged with dealing in cocaine after he and a companion delivered cocaine to a confidential informant on August 25, 2004. The trial court rejected two plea agreements between Swift and the State, and set the matter for jury trial on May 23, 2006. After a jury had been empanelled, Swift entered a "blind plea" 2 and the trial court found him guilty. At his sentencing hearing, Swift and members of his family testified, as did a representative from New Beginnings, a residential facility "designed to give young men the opportunity to address and overcome prior drug and alcohol abuse." Appellant at 5.) (Br. of

The trial court sentenced Swift to fifteen years in the Indiana

Department of Correction and suspended five years on "strict terms of probation." (App. at 77.) In sentencing Swift, the trial court stated: The Court when it makes a sentence, Mr. Swift, takes a look at many factors. It does look at the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, it takes a look at the nature of the arrests and the convictions that were involved. It takes a look at the, the nature of them, particularly at the drug offenses where there was repeated use. It takes a look at the variety of programs that were ordered to work with you before; home incarceration, probation, and there were a series of violations in those situations. The Escape charge advises the Court that basically whenever you were on home incarceration that usually means you should have been in jail but people are going to give you one more attempt or one more try. I can't speak for that specific case but that's generally the philosophy of the courts. So the bottom line is that

1 2

Ind. Code

Download Glenn Swift v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law