Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
977 N.E.2d 406
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Merida pled guilty to two counts of Child Molesting (Class A felonies) for acts occurring 2001–2007.
- Merida adopted R.M. and acted in a position of trust as her father.
- The State amended the information to add Counts Nine (2001) and Ten (2001–2007) after initially filing eight counts.
- Merida was sentenced to thirty years on each count, to run consecutively for a sixty-year aggregate term.
- Merida appeals arguing that the sentence is inappropriate due to the emotional impact on the victim as an aggravator and the consecutive sentencing.
- The Court reviews under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to determine if the sentence is inappropriate and grants relief to leaven outliers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Merida’s sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B)? | Merida argues the court used emotional impact as an aggravator and imposed consecutive terms. | The State contends the court acted within discretion and that the aggregate term is appropriate. | Yes; the sentence is inappropriate; appellate court revises to concurrent 30-year terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (independent review under Rule 7(B) for inappropriate sentence)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (deference to trial court; leaven the outliers)
- Hull v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (concern about partially consecutive sentences and equity)