Dowell v. State

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed a conflict between the trial court’s oral sentencing statement and its written sentencing order in Regunal R. Dowell’s criminal case. Applying McElroy v. State, the court concluded that the trial court intended to impose an executed three-year sentence for criminal confinement, affirmed Dowell’s aggregate 43-year sentence, and summarily affirmed the remaining portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

Holdings

1. A conflicting oral sentencing statement does not automatically control over a written sentencing order; the reviewing court must examine both statements to determine which accurately reflects the trial court's intended sentence, with remand for resentencing available if necessary.
2. The trial court intended to impose an executed three-year sentence for criminal confinement, and the resulting aggregate executed sentence was 43 years.

Questions Presented

1. When a trial court's oral sentencing statement conflicts with its written sentencing order, which statement controls?
2. Did the trial court intend to impose an executed three-year sentence for criminal confinement, resulting in an aggregate 43-year sentence?

Disposition

affirmed