Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Maurice Devin HORTON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] On December 19, 2018, the State charged Maurice Horton with three counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and one count of Class B misdemeanor battery. The State dismissed the battery count before trial. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Horton guilty of one count of resisting law enforcement and not guilty of the other two counts. Horton was sentenced to 365 days, with 359 days suspended and 180 days of probation.
[2] The chronological case summary reflects that Horton was acquitted of two resisting charges and that the State dismissed the battery charge. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7. The written sentencing order, however, shows that Horton was convicted of one of the resisting counts, but is silent as to the other charges. Appealed Order p. 1. Horton appeals, asking that we remand so that the sentencing order can be modified.
[3] The State notes that Horton has not offered any authority stating that trial courts are required to note the disposition of all charges in a sentencing order. Notwithstanding a lack of authority standing for that proposition, however, we believe that the better practice is for sentencing orders to be complete and accurate with respect to the charges that were tried. Therefore, we remand with instructions to amend the sentencing order by adding the other two resisting law enforcement counts and indicating that Horton was acquitted of those charges. We do not believe it necessary to add the battery charge because the State voluntarily dismissed that count prior to trial.
[4] The judgment of the trial court is remanded with instructions.
Baker, Judge.
Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1079
Decided: October 29, 2019
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)