Amalfitano v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1868
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Amalfitano pled guilty to nine felonies, including criminal confinement, battery with SBI, exploitation of an endangered adult, theft, obtaining a prescription by fraud, and possession of controlled substances.
- A.T., a 65-year-old woman with dementia, was confined in a small utility room for over six months, under conditions described as barely fit for an animal, while Amalfitano and his family abused and controlled her.
- Police found A.T. severely malnourished and injured; she required hospitalization after welfare checks prompted the investigation.
- Amalfitano and his family allegedly redirected A.T.'s social security benefits and prescription medications for their own use; he admitted his sons hit A.T. and that she was deprived of basic needs.
- The trial court imposed the maximum sentence allowed under the plea agreement: 46 years total, with 34 executed and 12 suspended to probation, based on five aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether criminal history as an aggravator was abused | Amalfitano contends this aggravator is improper | State argues criminal history properly aggravates sentence | Record supports use of criminal history as aggravator |
| Whether position of trust with the victim constitutes an aggravator | Amalfitano challenges the trust aggravator as improper | State maintains trust relationship existed and justified the aggravator | Court properly found position of trust as aggravator |
| Whether guilty plea and remorse were properly considered as mitigating factors | Amalfitano argues plea and remorse should lessen sentence | State contends mitigating weight was limited or unwarranted | Court rejected plea/remorse as mitigating given strong record |
| Whether a forty-six-year sentence is inappropriate given the offense and offender | Amalfitano argues sentence is too severe | State argues sentence is warranted by offenses and history | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (requires detailed sentencing statements and supports review standards)
- Anglemyer v. State (reh'g)., 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.2007) (clarified sentencing framework after rehearing)
- Smallwood v. State, 773 N.E.2d 259 (Ind.2002) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing statements)
- Atwood v. State, 905 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (limited criminal history valid aggravator)
- Rodriguez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 551 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (position of trust concept in aggravation)
- Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (plea as mitigating factor not automatic)
- Boner v. State, 796 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (review of sentence under appellate standards)
- Patterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (burden on defendant to show inappropriate sentence)