Ann Casildo v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
46A03-1603-CR-532
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- Victim reported his daughter, Ann Casildo, used his credit cards without permission, charging approximately $32,000 and opening a line of credit; he also reported missing bank funds later found deposited into Casildo’s account.
- Casildo admitted using the credit cards (claiming permission) and admitted forging three checks totaling $5,500 and depositing the proceeds into her account.
- Casildo was charged with Class C forgery, two counts of Class D fraud, and Class D identity deception; she pleaded guilty to forgery under a plea agreement dismissing the other counts.
- At sentencing the trial court found aggravators outweighed mitigators and imposed an executed six-year sentence (presumptive for Class C is four years).
- Casildo appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by giving little weight to her mental-health and substance-abuse mitigation and that the six-year term is inappropriate given the offense and her character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its sentencing discretion by minimizing mitigating evidence | State: sentencing discretion is within trial court and properly exercised | Casildo: court gave "little weight" to mitigation (mental illness, substance abuse) — abuse of discretion | No abuse; appellate court will not reweigh weight given to mitigation (Anglemyer rule) |
| Whether six-year executed sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | State: sentence fits nature of offense and defendant's history | Casildo: six years is excessive given offense and her character | Sentence not inappropriate; nature (betrayal of elderly father, large fraud/forgery) and extensive criminal history support six years |
Key Cases Cited
- Losch v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2005) (sentencing generally left to trial court discretion)
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (trial court may adjust presumptive sentence for aggravators/mitigators)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (appellate courts do not reweigh the weight a trial court assigns mitigating circumstances)
- Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (criminal history is a relevant consideration in assessing defendant's character)