Akard v. State, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 793

Defendant Akard was convicted after a three‑day jury trial of multiple violent-sex-offense counts including rape, criminal deviate conduct, criminal confinement, and battery; aggregate sentence originally 93 years after grouping sentences within offenses and ordering groups to run concurrently and consecutively.
Trial court found aggravating circumstances and no mitigating factors, and sentenced within the State’s recommended range, resulting in an aggregate 93‑year term.
Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and revised the aggregate sentence to 118 years, later corrected to 94 years on transfer, with ministerial correction from 93 to 94 years
On appeal Akard argued (a) admission of pornographic materials, (b) admission of post‑arrest silence before rights advisement, and (c) improper combination of enhanced and consecutive sentences.
Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed most aspects, but corrected certain battery sentences and upheld the 94‑year aggregate sentence as appropriate.
This opinion remands for judgment modification consistent with the 94‑year aggregate sentence and declines to further revise the sentence absent demonstrated reasonableness challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pornographic materials were improperly admitted.	Akard contends error in admission.	State justified admission as probative of intent and pattern.	No reversible error; admission upheld.
Whether Akard’s post‑arrest silence before Miranda rights were read was improperly admitted.	Silence invoked by Akard after arrest was improperly used.	State could use silence under applicable standards.	Issue not leading to reversal; challenged on appeal but affirmed as proper.
Whether the sentence improperly combined enhanced and consecutive terms.	Sentence should be concurrently served.	Aggregate within statutory range; concurrent elements appropriate.	Court declined to revise aggregate sentence; corrected Battery counts to 1 year each, resulting in 94‑year aggregate.
Whether the aggregate sentence is appropriate in light of offense and offender.	Sentence reasonable given harm and Akard’s history.	Sentence excessive given criminal history and similar factors.	Aggregate 94 years deemed appropriate; no further upward revision.

McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review of sentence; authority to reduce or increase under Rule 7(B))
Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d 202 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (addressing sentencing and appellate review; precedential to this case)