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: JASON W. BENNETT Bennett Boehning & Clary LLP Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE M. SCHUSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Apr 26 2011, 10:20 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MYRON BERNARD JAMES, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 79A02-1007-CR-830

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Judge Cause No. 79D01-0710-FA-37

April 26, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

Following a jury trial, Myron Bernard James was convicted of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine1 as a Class B felony and sentenced in absentia to forty-five years imprisonment. James presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing James in absentia. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 2007, the State charged James with conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony, dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony, possession of cocaine as a Class A felony, and obstruction of justice as a Class D felony. James was informed of his trial date in person and ordered to appear. His attorney sent him a letter confirming the trial date and later spoke with him before trial to verify the date. James failed to appear the first day of his trial, and even after communicating with his attorney, failed to appear the remainder of the trial. A jury found James guilty in absentia of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony and not guilty of the remaining charges. James failed to appear for his pre-sentence interview and was sentenced in absentia to a term of forty-five years of imprisonment. He now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION James contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him in absentia. Specifically, James argues that no evidence was presented to find his absence was knowing and voluntary. We disagree. A decision to sentence a defendant in

absentia is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Cleff v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1089, 1091-92
1

See Ind. Code

Download Myron Bernard James v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law