Tyler Dale Knutson v. State of Indiana , 103 N.E.3d 700 ( 2018 )

FILED
May 31 2018, 10:23 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Alicia M. O’Keefe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Law Offices of Richard D. Martin & Attorney General of Indiana
Associates Katherine Cooper
Frankfort, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tyler Dale Knutson, May 31, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
12A04-1709-CR-2246
v. Appeal from the Clinton Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Justin H. Hunter,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
12D01-1704-F5-412
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] In this interlocutory appeal, Tyler Dale Knutson challenges the trial court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss his charge for Level 5 felony unlawful
possession of a syringe. Because we conclude that the offense of unlawful
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 1 of 8
possession of a syringe cannot be enhanced to a Level 5 felony based on a prior
conviction pursuant to Indiana Code section 16-42-19-27 and can only be
charged as a Level 6 felony, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Knutson’s
motion to dismiss and order the court to dismiss the Level 5 felony
enhancement.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In April 2017, the State charged Knutson with unlawful possession of a syringe,
which is a Level 6 felony under Indiana Code section 16-42-19-18. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II p. 10.1 The State filed a separate document to enhance the charge
to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction pursuant to Indiana Code
section 16-42-19-27. Id. at 9.2 Knutson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that
there was “no[] statutory authority for elevation of this offense from a level 6
felony, to a level 5 felony, based upon a prior conviction for the offense.” Id. at
43. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Knutson’s motion to dismiss.
At Knutson’s request, the trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal,
and this Court accepted jurisdiction of the appeal.
1
This count is labeled a Level 5 felony, but the body of the charging information alleges a Level 6 felony.
2
The State also charged Knutson with Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug (Fentanyl), but this
charge is not at issue in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[3] The issue is whether unlawful possession of a syringe can be elevated from a
Level 6 felony to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction pursuant to
Indiana Code section 16-42-19-27. Matters of statutory interpretation, which
inherently present a pure question of law, are reviewed de novo. Shepard v.
State, 84 N.E.3d 1171, 1173 (Ind. 2017).
[4] In interpreting a statute, our goal is to determine and give effect to the intent of
the legislature. State v. IBM Corp., 964 N.E.2d 206, 209 (Ind. 2012). We start
with the plain language of the statute, giving its words their ordinary meaning
and considering the structure of the statute as a whole. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco
Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 79 N.E.3d 371, 376 (Ind. 2017). No word or part
of the statute should be rendered meaningless if it can be reconciled with the
rest of the statute. Id. When the legislature amends a statute, we presume that
it intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was
made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.
Tedlock v. State, 656 N.E.2d 273, 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
[5] Indiana Code chapter 16-42-19 sets forth several criminal offenses, most of
which concern the possession, use, and sale of legend drugs.3 With one
exception, none of the sections in Chapter 19 sets forth the offense level for a
3
For purposes of Indiana Code article 16-42, “legend drug” “means a drug that is: (1) subject to 21 U.S.C.
353(b)(1); (2) listed in the Prescription Drug Product List . . .; or (3) insulin.” Ind. Code § 16-18-2-199.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 8
violation. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 16-42-19-13. Rather, Indiana Code section 16-
42-19-27 (“the general offense-level statute”) sets forth the offense levels for
violations as follows:
(a) Unless otherwise specified, a person who knowingly violates
this chapter, except sections 25(b) and 30(c) of this chapter,
commits a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Level 5
felony if the person has a prior conviction under this subsection
or IC 16-6-8-10(a) before its repeal.
(b) A person who violates section 25(b) of this chapter commits
dealing in an anabolic steroid, a Level 5 felony. However, the
offense is a Level 4 felony if the person delivered the anabolic
steroid to a person who is:
(1) less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
(2) at least three (3) years younger than the delivering
person.
(c) A person who violates section 30(c) of this chapter commits a
Class A infraction.
(Emphasis added). The only section in Chapter 19 that includes an offense
level is Indiana Code section 16-42-19-18 (“the syringe-possession statute”),
which criminalizes the possession of a syringe as follows:
(a) A person may not possess with intent to:
(1) violate this chapter; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 8
(2) commit an offense described in IC 35-48-4;
a hypodermic syringe or needle or an instrument adapted for the
use of a controlled substance or legend drug by injection in a
human being.
(b) A person who violates subsection (a) commits a Level 6
felony.
[6] Knutson contends that the general offense-level statute—which allows for a
Level 6 felony to be enhanced to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction—
does not apply to the syringe-possession statute because the general offense-
level statute begins with “Unless otherwise specified” and the syringe-
possession statute (which is the only section in Chapter 19 that includes an
offense level) “otherwise specifies” that possession of a syringe is a Level 6
felony. Knutson claims that reading the two statutes any other way would
make the phrase “Unless otherwise specified” meaningless as it relates to the
syringe-possession statute. The State does not dispute Knutson’s claim that
reading the statutes any other way would render the phrase meaningless.
Rather, the State argues that to read the phrase as Knutson suggests would be
“illogical” because there is “no reason why the legislature would not intend for
the enhancement based upon having a prior conviction to apply to unlawful
possession of a syringe in the same manner that it would apply to the other
offenses contained in chapter 19.” Appellee’s Br. p. 12. But when the history
of these two statutes is considered, it is apparent that this is precisely what the
legislature intended.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 5 of 8
[7] During the 2015 legislative session, the General Assembly, in response to this
Court’s decision in Bookwalter v. State, 22 N.E.3d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),
trans. denied, amended the syringe-possession statute to add that a person cannot
possess a syringe with intent to inject a controlled substance. In Bookwalter, the
defendant possessed a syringe with intent to inject heroin, and because heroin is
not a legend drug, we reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of a
syringe. The following changes were made to the syringe-possession statute,
which became effective July 1, 2015 (strike through indicates deletions, bolding
indicates additions):
(a) A person may not possess or have under control with intent
to:
(1) violate this chapter; or
(2) commit an offense described in IC 35-48-4;
a hypodermic syringe or needle or an instrument adapted for the
use of a controlled substance or legend drug by injection in a
human being.
(b) A person who violates subsection (a) commits a Level 6
felony.
P.L. 187-2015, § 23. In the same public law, in the very next section, the
legislature made the following amendment to the general offense-level statute:
(a) Unless otherwise specified, a person who knowingly violates
this chapter, except sections 24, 25(b), and 30(c) of this chapter,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 6 of 8
commits a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Level 5
felony if the person has a prior conviction under this subsection
or IC 16-6-8-10(a) before its repeal.
*****
Id. at § 24.
[8] Thus, in back-to-back sections of the same public law, the legislature specified
that it is a Level 6 felony to possess a syringe (but notably did not add offense
levels to any of the other sections in Chapter 19) and then added the phrase
“Unless otherwise provided” to the general offense-level statute. Given these
back-to-back amendments, it is clear to us that the legislature did not intend for
the general offense-level statute to apply to unlawful possession of a syringe.
This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that unlawful possession of a syringe
was already a Level 6 felony before the 2015 amendments. In other words, if
we were to adopt the State’s position that the general offense-level statute—
which provides that a person who violates Chapter 19 “commits a Level 6
felony”—applies to unlawful possession of a syringe, then newly added
subsection (b) of the syringe-possession statute—which identically provides that
a person who unlawfully possesses a syringe “commits a Level 6 felony”—
would be completely unnecessary and meaningless.
[9] As for the State’s argument that there is “no reason why the legislature would
not intend” for the Level 5 felony enhancement to apply to unlawful possession
of a syringe, we find that the 2015 amendments to these statutes are in line with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 7 of 8
the General Assembly’s comprehensive revisions to our criminal code, which
included reducing penalties for certain drug offenses. See generally P.L. 158-
2013. Although we can understand why the legislature might want to penalize
the possession of a syringe as a Level 6 felony—which has a sentencing range of
six months to two-and-a-half years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7—we can see why it
would not want to crowd our prisons with drug addicts by making it a Level 5
felony, which has a significantly higher sentencing range of one to six years,
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6.
[10] Accordingly, we agree with Knutson that unlawful possession of a syringe
cannot be enhanced to a Level 5 felony pursuant to the general offense-level
statute. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of Knutson’s motion to
dismiss and order the court to dismiss the Level 5 felony enhancement.4
[11] Reversed and remanded.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
4
The State should also amend the charging information for unlawful possession of a syringe to specify that it
is a Level 6 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A04-1709-CR-2246 | May 31, 2018 Page 8 of 8