Douglas R. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Jul 30 2008, 9:57 am ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ANNA E. ONAITIS Indianapolis, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA DOUGLAS R. MARTIN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 57A04-0803-CR-185 APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael Kramer, Judge Cause No. 57D02-0801-CM-3 July 30, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge Case Summary Douglas Martin appeals his 180-day sentence for two Class A misdemeanors and one Class C misdemeanor. We affirm. Issue Martin raises only one issue, which is whether his 180-day sentence is appropriate. Facts On January 2, 2008, Martin pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Class A misdemeanor trespass, and Class C misdemeanor possession of alcohol by a minor. The charges stemmed from Martin s attendance at a New Year s Eve party on December 31, 2007. The trial court sentenced Martin to 180 days for the contributing to the delinquency of a minor and trespass convictions and 60 days for the possession conviction, to run concurrently. This appeal followed. With good time credit, Martin was set to complete the sentence on March 30, 2008, and was released on April 1, 2008. Analysis Once a sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered moot. Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). Martin served his sentence and was released on April 1, 2008. Our analysis of the appropriateness of Martin s sentence would be of no benefit to him at this point. Nor is this an instance where the issue is of great public interest, presents a factual situation likely to reoccur, or is an issue that will continue to evade review. See Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (listing 2 exceptions to the general rule that issues are deemed moot if we are unable to provide effective relief), trans. denied. Martin s claim is moot, does not warrant an exception to the rule, and fails. Conclusion The issue presented by Martin s appeal is moot. We affirm. Affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and DARDEN, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
