260.423.9551Call
215 East Berry Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Criminal Law

Alexander v. State (Ind. Ct. App. May 10, 2013)

In this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a criminal appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the order that the Defendant was attempting to appeal was not a final order. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that because the trial court had not yet held the restitution hearing and issued the order on restitution, the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated battery could not yet be appealed. The Court relied on its recent decision in Haste v. State, 967 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), in which the Court of Appeals also dismissed an appeal where the trial court had entered a sentencing order but took the issue of restitution under advisement.


The Court of Appeals also took this opportunity to comment on trial courts’ common practice of imposing a sentence but taking the issue of restitution under advisement. The Court noted that this practice “can prove to be problematic—as it has in this case—because it delays a defendant’s ability to begin an appeal due to the fact that a final order has not been entered.” The Court of Appeals explained that “the best practice would be for trial courts to enter an order of restitution at the same time as sentencing.”

The other interesting issue in this appeal was that the motions panel had denied the State’s motion to dismiss based on the same arguments that led this panel of the Court of Appeals to dismiss the opinion. The Court of Appeals noted that although the Court is generally “reluctant” to overrule orders issued by the motions panel, the panel of the Court of Appeals that decides the case always has the inherent authority to reconsider a motions panel’s decision.

This decision is important for both trial and appellate counsel. It clarifies the time at which a criminal sentencing order becomes ripe for appeal and instructs trial counsel and trial courts that the best procedure is to have a restitution order issued at the same time as a sentencing order.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.
YesNo