Charles P. Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
15A05-1706-CR-1432
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- On March 20, 2017, Clark’s girlfriend provided police videos showing Clark repeatedly beating, choking, punching, and stomping a family dog (a rescued boxer named Dudley).
- Police arrested Clark; he admitted the abuse but claimed remorse and later said he blacked out due to medication and attempted suicide, receiving six days of mental-health treatment.
- The State charged Clark with two counts of cruelty to an animal; charges were amended from Class A misdemeanors to Level 6 felonies. Clark pled guilty under an agreement that left sentencing to the court and required concurrent sentences.
- At sentencing, Clark (43) had no criminal history, prior steady employment, shared child-support obligations, and expressed remorse; he offered no corroboration of medication-induced blackout.
- The trial court found the videos showed extreme, unprovoked cruelty and sentenced Clark to concurrent 910-day terms with 365 days suspended on each count (effective executed time: 1.5 years).
- Clark appealed, arguing the sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) considering the nature of the offense and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: Sentence is appropriate given the extreme, unprovoked cruelty and harm to the animal | Clark: Sentence is inappropriate given his lack of criminal history, remorse, mental-health issues, and claimed medication blackout | Affirmed: Sentence not inappropriate in light of offense and character |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentencing under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review should "leaven the outliers" and not substitute its judgment for trial court)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court may consider any record factors when assessing nature and character)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2008) (defendant must show sentence inappropriate in light of both character and nature of offense)
- Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deference to trial court due to its unique sentencing perspective)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference should stand absent compelling evidence portraying the offense or character positively)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence is the starting point for appropriateness review)