Armando Gonzalez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1608-CR-2110
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.May 16, 2017Background
- Gonzalez was convicted by jury of four offenses (robbery while armed, burglary, criminal confinement, conspiracy) and the court found him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
- At initial sentencing the trial court reduced robbery and criminal confinement from Class B to Class C felonies (over State objection) and imposed consecutive sentences producing a 61-year aggregate term.
- On appeal the State cross-appealed the reductions; this court held the reductions to Class C were erroneous and remanded for resentencing with those counts as Class B felonies.
- On remand the trial court resentenced Gonzalez on five Class B felonies, adjusting individual term lengths (e.g., robbery to 15 years, confinement to 10 years) and again imposed a 61-year aggregate sentence.
- Gonzalez appealed, arguing the trial court exceeded the Court of Appeals’ directive by increasing individual sentence lengths on resentencing without new evidence or instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded the appellate directive on remand by altering sentence lengths | State: remand authorized resentencing; trial court may adjust under applicable law | Gonzalez: court only meant to reclassify convictions to Class B and not change sentence lengths | Held: Remand authorized resentencing; trial court permissibly adjusted individual terms consistent with reclassification and sentencing discretion |
| Whether increasing individual sentences on resentencing was improper vindictive or illegal sentencing | State: increasing individual terms is permissible on remand in multi-count cases where class/convictions change | Gonzalez: increasing individual sentences without new evidence or direction was error | Held: Not improper or illegal; court may increase individual sentences on remand so long as aggregate does not exceed original and sentencing discretion is applied |
| Whether the sentence lengths were unjustified given statutory ranges | Gonzalez: no discernible reason to increase terms when convictions simply reclassified | State: reclassification from Class C to Class B changes statutory ranges and advisory terms, justifying longer terms | Held: Increase consistent with higher felony class ranges and trial court’s weighing of aggravators/mitigators |
| Whether precedent limits trial court options on remand (e.g., O’Connell) | Gonzalez: O’Connell limits trial court to certain remedial options absent instruction | State: O’Connell involved a different remedy; it does not constrain resentencing authority here | Held: O’Connell is distinguishable; resentencing (not mere entry of an amended order) was proper and trial court had flexibility |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2001) (remand for a new sentencing order to explain the basis for a sentence)
- Lane v. State, 727 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court must follow statutory presumptive sentence when resentencing after a statutory change)
- Guffey v. State, 42 N.E.3d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court may increase individual sentences on remand in multi-count cases so long as aggregate does not exceed original)
- Hmurovic v. State, 43 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing remand and resentencing procedures in multi-count contexts)