Brittany N. Heft v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
73A04-1611-CR-2569
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- On Dec. 30, 2015, Brittany Heft went to her ex-boyfriend D.C.’s home to retrieve belongings, searched his phone, threw the phone, and punched D.C. when he returned; their two-year-old child was present.
- Heft was charged with Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child; she pled guilty to that count pursuant to an agreement without a sentencing cap and with consecutive sentences to other cases.
- At sentencing, Heft admitted histories of drug/alcohol abuse and diagnoses including PTSD, ADHD, and depression; she also reported physical ailments.
- The trial court found aggravators: Heft committed offenses while on bond (violating no-contact orders) and was on probation when the instant offense occurred; mitigators included her guilty plea and mental health history.
- The court sentenced Heft to two years (the statutory range for a Level 6 felony is 6 months–2.5 years; the advisory is 1 year). Heft appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) as to sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Heft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-year executed sentence was inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given defendant’s criminal history, probationary status, new offenses while on bond, and presence of child during battery | Sentence is inappropriate because the offense involved one contact, no visible injury, she left immediately, and her mental health/plea warrant mitigation | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; within statutory range and supported by offender’s character and offense nature |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sentences and role of mitigating/aggravating findings)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of Rule 7(B) review; focus on aggregate sentence)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court’s sentencing perspective)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of all penal consequences in Rule 7(B) review)
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (assessing whether offense is more or less egregious than typical for advisory sentence)
- Corralez v. State, 815 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (mental health requires nexus to offense to be mitigating)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishing Rule 7(B) appropriateness review from abuse-of-discretion challenges)