Melissa Skinner/Brandon Cockrell v. State

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael E. Caudill Karen M. Freeman-Wilson Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Adam M. Dulik Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA MELISSA SKINNER, ) ) Appellant (Defendant Below), ) ) v. ) ) 49S05-0010-CR-592 STATE OF INDIANA, ) in the Supreme Court ) Appellee (Plaintiff Below). ) BRANDON COCKRELL, ) ) 49A05-9912-CR-529 Appellant (Defendant Below), ) in the Court of Appeals ) v. ) ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee (Plaintiff Below). ) APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Gary Miller, Presiding Judge Cause No. 49G05-9905-CF-078437 (Skinner) Cause No. 49G06-9905-CF-078436 (Cockrell) October 20, 2000 SHEPARD, Chief Justice. The State charged appellants Melissa J. Skinner and Brandon H. Cockrell with defrauding a financial institution, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-5 - 8 (West 1998), in cases arising out of separate facts. Appellants assert that the allegations against them also fall under the statute that criminalizes check fraud, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-5-12 (b) (West 1998). Relying on State v. Wynne, 699 N.E.2d 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), they contend that the State may charge them only with check fraud, the check fraud statute being both more specific and more recently adopted. The net result of accepting this contention would be reducing the class of felony and therefore the potential penalty. The Court of Appeals in this appeal declined to follow Wynne. Instead, it held that when two criminal statutes overlap such that either may cover a given set of facts, the prosecutor has the discretion to charge under either statute. Skinner v. State 732 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). We grant transfer and summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals in these consolidated cases. Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). The decision in State v. Wynne is disapproved. The judgments of the trial court are thus affirmed. Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.