Download the original WordPerfect Document here
Attorneys for Appellant
Susan K. Carpenter
Public Defender of Indiana
Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellee
Jeffrey A. Modisett
Attorney General of Indiana
Christopher L. LaFuse
Deputy Attorney General
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
Appellant (Defendant below),
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
) Supreme Court No.
) Court of Appeals No.
APPEAL FROM THE DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Richard A. Dailey, Judge
Cause No. 18D02-9210-CF-73
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
May 6, 1998
In accordance with our decision today in State v. Mohler, No. 87S01-9709-PC-497
(Ind. May 6, 1998), we conclude that the new rule of law announced in Bryant v. State, 660
N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 293 (1996), is not retroactive under Daniels
v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. 1990), and so does not entitle Jeffrey Hazzard to post-
On October 9, 1992, the State charged Jeffrey Hazzard ("Hazzard") with possession
of cocaine,See footnote
carrying a handgun without a license,See footnote
resisting law enforcement,See footnote
and being a
habitual offender.See footnote
On February 11, 1993, the Indiana Department of Revenue assessed
Hazzard a Controlled Substance Excise Tax ("CSET").See footnote
The trial court entered a judgment
of civil forfeiture against Hazzard for $5671.47 and his handgun on March 4, 1993. On
August 3, 1993, a jury convicted Hazzard on all charges. This Court affirmed Hazzard's
convictions on direct appeal. Hazzard v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind. 1994). Hazzard did
not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.See footnote
On July 22, 1996, Hazzard filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his
conviction for possession, assessment of the CSET, and civil forfeiture of his handgun
violated double jeopardy protections. The post-conviction court denied Hazzard's petition.
Hazzard appealed. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the post-
conviction court's denial of relief, holding that the post-conviction court erred in not
applying retroactively the rule announced in Bryant, 660 N.E.2d 290 (holding that because
CSET is punishment, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars criminal prosecution for the
underlying drug offense after CSET has been assessed).See footnote
Hazzard v. State, No. 18A05-9611-
PC-484 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 1997).
Having granted transfer, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to
Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3) and affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief for the
reasons set forth in State v. Mohler, No. 87S01-9709-PC-497 (Ind. May 6, 1998), also
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY, and BOEHM, JJ., concur.
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (1988 & Supp. 1990).
Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 (1988).
Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3 (1988).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (1988 & Supp. 1990).
Ind. Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to -17 (Supp. 1992).
Hazzard's convictions and sentence became final when he did not file a petition for certiorari
within ninety days of this Court's decision in Hazzard v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind. 1994). See
Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390 (1994).
The Court of Appeals did not address Hazzard's argument that the conviction and civil
forfeiture together violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2136
(1996), seems to make clear that they did not.
Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network