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: DAVID ROSSELOT Kokomo, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
HANNAH RAE BIRDSONG, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 34A04-0708-CR-424

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Stephen M. Jessup Cause No. 34D02-0509-FC-00354

DECEMBER 26, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBERTSON, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Hannah Ray Birdsong appeals the sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to four counts of Class C felony forgery. We affirm. ISSUE The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in sentencing Birdsong.1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The State charged Birdsong with seven counts of Class C felony forgery after she forged seven checks totaling $1197.15 from Calvin Moss' account. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Birdsong pleaded guilty to four of the seven counts. On three of these counts, the trial court sentenced Birdsong to eight years, with three years executed and five years on probation. The court ordered these three sentences to run concurrently. The court sentenced Birdsong to a suspended eight-year sentence on the fourth count and ordered that sentence to run consecutive to the concurrent sentence imposed on the other three counts. The total executed sentence was therefore three years. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Birdsong argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her. Specifically, she first contends that her Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury under Blakely v. State, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), was violated when the trial court used aggravators that had not been found by a jury or admitted to by her to enhance her sentence. However, effective April 25, 2005, our legislature replaced the presumptive fixed term sentencing scheme with an advisory
Birdsong also argues that her guilty plea was not voluntary. However, a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty plea must be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief. See Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11, 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
1

2

scheme. This amended scheme allows a trial court to impose any lawful sentence within the stated range for the class of crime regardless of the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances. See Ind. Code

Download 12260701jjr.pdf

Indiana Law