Christopher George Gordon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1511-CR-1982
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- On May 3, 2014, Christopher Gordon (age 21) chased Stephen Davis after Davis made a gesture at Gordon; Gordon fired multiple shots, striking Davis in the back multiple times, and Davis died at the scene.
- Gordon was initially charged with murder; two weeks before trial he entered a stipulated guilty plea to Class A voluntary manslaughter under a plea cap of 35 years, with the murder count to be dismissed at sentencing.
- At sentencing the court found mitigation only for guilty plea/acceptance of responsibility; it found aggravators including prior criminal history, pending charges, failure to be deterred by prior leniency, and jail rule violations.
- Gordon admitted extensive drug use (marijuana daily, ‘‘molly,’’ early codeine use) and had a high Risk Assessment score and multiple jail rule violations; he had one prior felony trespass conviction and several pending charges.
- The advisory sentence for Class A voluntary manslaughter was 30 years; the trial court imposed a 32-year Department of Correction sentence (2 years above advisory and 3 years below the plea cap).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gordon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gordon’s 32‑year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) given nature of offense and character | Sentence is appropriate because defendant pursued and shot victim multiple times in the back, has significant substance abuse, criminal history, pending charges, high recidivism risk, and jail violations | Sentence is inappropriate because the killing was voluntary manslaughter involving sudden heat (an element of the offense), implying lesser culpability and warranting no more than the advisory term | Affirmed: 32‑year sentence is not inappropriate; facts show more than sudden heat and offender’s character supports aggravation |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (describing appellate Rule 7(B) review as a discretionary judgment with deference to the trial court)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (clarifying that 7(B) asks whether an imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence would be better)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (placing burden on defendant to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174 (Ind. 2016) (noting advisory sentence as the legislature’s starting point)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (discussing sentencing framework and the advisory sentence concept)