Download the original WordPerfect Document here

Attorneys for Appellant

Susan K. Carpenter
Public Defender of Indiana

Ruth Johnson
Deputy Public Defender
Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee

Jeffrey A. Modisett
Attorney General of Indiana

Christopher L. LaFuse
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana



    Appellant (Defendant below),


    Appellee (Plaintiff below).

)    Supreme Court No.
)    18S05-9802-PC-103
)    Court of Appeals No.
)    18A05-9611-PC-484


The Honorable Richard A. Dailey, Judge

Cause No. 18D02-9210-CF-73


May 6, 1998
SULLIVAN, Justice.

    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- conviction relief.


    On October 9, 1992, the State charged Jeffrey Hazzard ("Hazzard") with possession of cocaine,See footnote 1 carrying a handgun without a license,See footnote 2 resisting law enforcement,See footnote 3 and being a habitual offender.See footnote 4 On February 11, 1993, the Indiana Department of Revenue assessed Hazzard a Controlled Substance Excise Tax ("CSET").See footnote 5 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 6

    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 7 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 decided today.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY, and BOEHM, JJ., concur.

Footnote:     1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (1988 & Supp. 1990).
Footnote:     2 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 (1988).
Footnote:     3 Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3 (1988).
Footnote:     4 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (1988 & Supp. 1990).
Footnote:     5 Ind. Code §§ 6-7-3-1 to -17 (Supp. 1992).
Footnote:     6 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).
Footnote:     7 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