Jamal R. Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing
Sep 09 2020, 7:53 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stephen Gerald Gray Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ian McLean
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jamal R. Smith, September 9, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1090
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G21-1710-F2-42053
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1090| September 9, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In April of 2020, the trial court amended its sentencing order, sentencing Jamal
Smith to thirty years of incarceration with two years suspended for his Level 2
felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, and scheduled a jury trial for July
30, 2020, regarding the habitual-offender allegation against Smith. Prior to trial,
Smith appealed his sentence, and the trial court cancelled the habitual-offender
jury trial. Because we conclude that Smith is not appealing from a final
judgment, we dismiss his appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 28, 2019, following a bench trial, Smith was convicted of Level 2
felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Level 3 felony narcotic-drug possession, and
Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession. The trial court also found Smith to
be a habitual offender. On March 27, 2019, the trial court sentenced Smith to
thirty years of incarceration with ten years suspended for his conviction for
dealing in a narcotic drug and enhanced that sentence by twenty years based on
its finding that Smith is a habitual offender. The trial court also sentenced Smith
to one hundred and eighty days for his marijuana-possession conviction, to be
served concurrently with his dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction. On January
28, 2020, we affirmed Smith’s convictions but reversed the trial court’s habitual-
offender finding, after concluding that Smith had not waived his right to a jury
trial on the habitual-offender allegation. In doing so, we remanded the case for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1090| September 9, 2020 Page 2 of 4
the State to decide whether to pursue the habitual-offender enhancement. On
April 23, 2020, the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.
[3] On April 28, 2020, the trial court vacated the habitual-offender finding and
entered an amended-sentencing order, sentencing Smith to thirty years of
incarceration with ten years suspended for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-
narcotic-drug conviction and one hundred and eighty days for his Class B
misdemeanor marijuana-possession conviction, to be served concurrently. On
April 28, 2020, the trial court again entered an amended-sentencing order,
sentencing Smith to thirty years of incarceration with two years suspended for
his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction. On May 4, 2020, the
State notified the trial court that it intended to pursue the habitual-offender
allegation against Smith, and the trial court scheduled a jury trial for July 30,
2020. On May 26, 2020, however, Smith initiated this appeal, and, as a result,
the trial court cancelled the jury trial.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Smith contends that the trial court (1) wrongfully denied him a hearing on his
revised sentence for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, (2)
imposed a vindictive sentence, and (3) failed to make a record that stated its
reasons for imposing a more severe sentence on remand. We conclude,
however, that Smith’s contentions are not ripe for appellate review. A judgment
is final and appealable if “it disposes of all claims as to all parties.” Ind.
Appellate Rule 2(H)(1). In criminal cases, sentencing is a final judgment. Terrell
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1090| September 9, 2020 Page 3 of 4
v. State, 390 N.E.2d 208, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). In criminal cases where the
defendant is alleged to be a habitual offender, “[a] habitual offender finding
does not constitute a separate crime nor does it result in a separate sentence[,]”
but, rather, “it results in a sentence enhancement imposed upon the conviction
of a subsequent felony.” Howard v. State, 873 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007). Thus, a habitual offender ultimately receives one sentence, consisting “of
two components—the sentence for the underlying conviction and the habitual
offender enhancement.” Id. at 690.
[5] In this matter, the trial court amended Smith’s sentence for his Level 2 felony
dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction and set the habitual-offender allegation
for jury trial on July 30, 2020. While Smith raises numerous arguments
regarding the trial court’s decision to amend his original sentence for his
dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, those arguments are for another day.
Smith’s sentence for his dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction is but only one
component of his sentence, and until the habitual-offender allegation against
him has been disposed of, Smith’s sentence is not an appealable final judgment.
We therefore dismiss Smith’s appeal.
[6] Appeal dismissed.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1090| September 9, 2020 Page 4 of 4