148 N.E.3d 1171
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Feb. 4, 2019, Prince was stopped for an improper lane change and found to be driving despite a lifetime forfeiture of her license; charged Mar. 12, 2019 with operating after forfeiture for life (Level 5 felony).
- On Nov. 1, 2019, Prince pleaded guilty and admitted violating community corrections; the State agreed not to file a petition to revoke in exchange for Prince serving the remainder of her community corrections term in DOC; sentencing discretion on the new charge remained with the trial court.
- At sentencing (Dec. 4, 2019) the court imposed the advisory 3-year DOC sentence for the Level 5 felony, ordered it to run consecutively to three other matters, and recommended participation in Recovery While Incarcerated/Purposeful Incarceration with possible modification upon successful completion.
- Trial court found as aggravators: significant criminal history and recent violations of probation/community corrections; found as mitigators: acceptance of responsibility, hardship to dependents, and mental-health/substance-abuse issues.
- Prince received 167 days actual credit plus 167 days good-time credit; she appealed, arguing the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3-year advisory sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: The advisory 3-year sentence is appropriate given Prince’s criminal history and violations; trial court’s discretion should be afforded deference | Prince: Offense facts were minimal and she has taken steps to address substance abuse; her character and mitigation justify resentencing | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; advisory term justified by offense and poor character/criminal history; trial court’s findings supported sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (framework for appellate review of criminal sentences)
- Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225 (Ind. 2015) (appellate review asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be better)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial-court sentencing decisions receive considerable deference)
- Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (heavier burden to show inappropriateness when advisory sentence is imposed)
- Pelissier v. State, 122 N.E.3d 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (advisory sentence as starting point when assessing nature of offense)
- Moon v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (factors for assessing nature of offense such as absence of violence or restraint)