MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 08 2017, 8:32 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jack Quirk Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Billy Stacy Jr., February 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A02-1608-CR-1829
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M. Feick,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
18C04-1412-F3-2
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary and Issues
[1] Following a jury trial, Billy Stacy Jr. was convicted of rape, criminal
confinement, battery, strangulation, and theft. He was also found to be an
habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Stacy to an aggregate sentence of
sixty-two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Stacy
appeals his sentence, raising two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial
court abused its discretion in sentencing him, and (2) whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. However,
we find an issue raised sua sponte to be dispositive: whether the trial court
improperly sentenced Stacy. Concluding Stacy’s sentence exceeds statutory
authority, we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Late in the evening on December 15, 2014, Stacy joined friends, including
K.W., at a local bar and later returned to K.W.’s home where K.W. became
extremely intoxicated. K.W. fell asleep and awoke to discover Stacy standing
at the foot of the bed. Stacy then jumped on, struck, choked, and raped K.W.
Thereafter, Stacy fled the home and stole a vehicle.
[3] On December 23, 2014, the State charged Stacy with rape as a Level 3 felony,
criminal confinement as a Level 3 felony, battery as a Level 5 felony,
strangulation as a Level 6 felony, and theft as a Level 6 felony. The State also
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 2 of 4
alleged he was an habitual offender. A jury found Stacy guilty as charged. The
trial court then sentenced Stacy to an aggregate sentence of sixty-two years
executed. Relevant here, the trial court sentenced Stacy to twenty years for the
rape conviction and enhanced that sentence by eighteen years due to Stacy’s
status as an habitual offender. Stacy now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[4] We sua sponte address the legality of Stacy’s sentence. “A sentence that is
contrary to or violative of a penalty mandated by statute is illegal in the sense
that it is without statutory authorization. A sentence that exceeds statutory
authority constitutes fundamental error.” Reffett v. State, 844 N.E.2d 1072, 1073
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations omitted) (reversing and remanding to the trial
court for resentencing after sua sponte discovering the trial court imposed an
illegal sentence). Here, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on the
crime of rape as a Level 3 felony. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-5(b)(2)
provides a person who commits a Level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed
term of between three and sixteen years, with the advisory sentence being nine
years. In sentencing Stacy for rape as a Level 3 felony, the trial court ordered
Stacy to serve twenty years, four years above the maximum sentence for a Level
3 felony. Therefore, Stacy’s sentence is in excess of statutory authority.
Because Stacy’s sentence for rape is illegal and the trial court enhanced this
sentence due to Stacy’s habitual offender status, we reverse the sentence and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 3 of 4
remand this case for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion. For these
reasons, we need not address the merits of Stacy’s claims. See id. at 1073 n.3.
Conclusion
[5] The trial court improperly sentenced Stacy because it imposed a sentence
exceeding statutory authority. Stacy’s sentence is therefore reversed and we
remand to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.
[6] Reversed and remanded.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1608-CR-1829 | February 8, 2017 Page 4 of 4