Brian M. Marley v. State of Indiana
17 N.E.3d 335
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Marley pleaded guilty to Class B felony dealing in oxycodone in Dearborn Superior Court and was sentenced to 12 years with 10 executed and 2 suspended to probation.
- Palmer, Marley’s co-conspirator, was involved in multiple oxycodone sales and received a plea agreement to testify against Marley.
- Marley’s open plea and the trial court’s sentencing followed finding Marley to have a prior criminal history as an aggravating factor and mitigating factors including health and willingness to participate in therapy.
- Marley challenged the sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Post-7(B) review, arguing public policy changes under the new code should affect his sentence.
- The appellate court addressed whether amelioration and new-code penalties applied to Marley’s pre-July 1, 2014 offense and concluded they did not.
- The court affirmed, holding Marley’s sentence was not inappropriate after evaluating the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Marley’s sentence be deemed inappropriate due to changes in the new code | Marley argues leniency under the new code should affect his sentence | State argues savings clauses keep prior-law penalties | Savings clauses control; do not apply new-code penalties |
| Is the offense’s nature egregious enough to justify excess punishment | Marley downplays offensiveness since Palmer’s role was greater | Marley actively participated in three sales and funded heroin addiction | No reversal; offense nature supports the sentence |
| Should Palmer’s sentence affect Marley’s sentence comparably | Palmer received five years executed but longer total time; parallels show unfairness | Palmer had a plea with fixed terms; Marley had an open plea | Different plea agreements justify different sentences |
| Does Marley’s prior criminal history weigh as an aggravator | History supports aggravation | Acknowledges addiction but argues for mitigation | Criminal history supports trial court’s choice |
Key Cases Cited
- Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (independent appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sentencing review)
- Barber v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (guides when reviewing for reasonableness)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (probation implications and sentence length)
- Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980) (amelioration doctrine limitations)
- Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (substance abuse as mitigating or aggravating factor)
- Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (consideration of defendant’s treatment history)
- Bennet v. State, 787 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court attributed to substance abuse without mitigation)