Amy Morinskey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A04-1705-CR-1150
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- In 2012 Morinskey pled guilty to an amended Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and received a 12-year sentence (8 executed, 4 suspended with probation/community corrections).
- In 2015 the State filed to revoke her community corrections placement for failure to report and unpaid fees; a warrant was issued.
- During a 2015 traffic stop Morinskey gave a false name to avoid arrest; officers found methamphetamine on the vehicle and on her person.
- She was charged in Cause F5-24 with multiple counts including Level 5 possession (with prior dealing conviction) and false informing; she later pled guilty to Level 5 possession and Class A misdemeanor false informing; other counts were dismissed.
- The plea agreement allowed open sentencing; the trial court imposed 4 years for the Level 5 felony and 224 days for the misdemeanor, consecutive to each other and to the executed term from 2012.
- Morinskey appealed, arguing the trial court abused its sentencing discretion and that her sentence was inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B); the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morinskey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in sentencing | Trial court properly considered aggravators and mitigators and acted within discretion | Trial court abused discretion by not finding child hardship mitigator and by using lying to police as an aggravator (element of offense) | No abuse: court validly relied on criminal history and probation/community corrections violations; even if lying was improper, other aggravators support sentence |
| Whether sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given repeated methamphetamine-related conduct and probation status at time of offense | Sentence inappropriate given nonviolent facts, no victims, and addiction-related conduct meriting treatment | Not inappropriate: defendant’s significant criminal history, prior methamphetamine felony, and ongoing violations justify the 4-year Level 5 executed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sets standards for appellate review of sentencing statements and when remand is required)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on Anglemyer sentencing review)
- Gomillia v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2014) (a sentencing reason that merely repeats elements of the offense is improper)
- Hackett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999) (an improper aggravator does not require reversal when other valid aggravators exist)
- Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1999) (imprisonment’s impact on children is not a required mitigating factor absent special circumstances)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review’s role under Rule 7(B) is to "leaven the outliers")
- Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (upholding enhancement where valid aggravators remain despite an improper aggravator)
- Singh v. State, 40 N.E.3d 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for appellate review of sentencing discretion)