Aug 31 2016 07:09PM HP Fax

page 1

STATE OF INDIANA

IN THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT

)SS:
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY

STATE OF INDIANA

CAUSE NO. 7lD08-1307-FA-000017

- FILED AUG 3 1 Z016

)
vs.

Clerk
81. Joseph Superior Court

PURVIPATEL

)
)

RESENTENCING ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND

FROM THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS
On July 22, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating the
Defendant's

Class B felony feticide conviction.

The Court also vacated the Class A

felony neglect of a dependent conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for
entry of judgment
accordingly.!
2016.

of conviction

as a Class D felony, and to resentence

the Defendant

The Clerk of the Court of Appeals certified the opinion on August 29,

In accordance with the Court of Appeals decision, the Court now FINDS and

ORDERS as follows:
1.

A trial court's responsibility when directed by the higher courts to resentence a

Defendant is to produce a new sentencing order that responds to the concerns the
higher Court has raised in its decision. Depending upon the nature of those
concerns, this responsibility may be discharged by the trial court (1) issuing a new
sentencing order without taking any further action; (2) ordering additional
briefing on the sentencing issue and then issuing a new order without holding a
new sentencing hearing; or (3) ordering a new sentencing hearing at which
additional factual submissions are either allowed or disallowed and then issuing a
new order based on the presentations of the parties.2

2.

The Court flOds that no further action is necessary in this matter and issues this
new sentencing Order without hearing.

1 Purvi
2

Patel v. State a/Indiana, 2016 WL 3959344 (lnd.Ct.App. July 22, 2016).

See, O'Connell v. State. 742 N.E.2d 943, 952-953 (Ind. 2001). See also, Mauricio v. State; 941 N.E.2d

497,499

(Ind. 2011).

Aug 31 2016 07:09PM HP Fax

3.

page

At the time the Court originally sentenced the Defendant, the Court found, after
weighing any aggravating factors and mitigating factors, that the advisory thirty
year sentence was appropriate. The Court suspended ten years of that sentence.

4.

Based upon the same weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court
now finds that the advisory sentence of 18 months for Class D felony Neglect of a
Dependent is appropriate in this matter.

5.

As of the date of this Order, the Defendant has served 525 days. With Class 1
Credit, she has served a total of 1050 days which is in excess of the 18 month
sentence. The Defendant, therefore, shall be released immediately from the
Department of Corrections and she shall not be subject to supervision on parole.

IT IS THEREFORE

ORDERED that Judgment of Conviction is now entered for

Neglect of a Dependent as a Class D felony. The Defendant is sentenced to 18 months in

the Department of Corrections.

The Defendant has 525 days Class I Credit, and shall

therefore immediately be released from the Department of Corrections.

shall not be subject to supervision on parole.

SO ORDERED the date me-marked hereon.

ElizabetlC.Ulurley, Judge
St. Joseplshperior
Court

Distribution
FilelRJO
Lawrence C. Marshall, Attorney for the Defendant
Joel Schumm, Attorney for the Defendant
Kenneth P. Cotter, Prosecuting Attorney

The Defendant