Christopher N. Kennedy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
89A05-1705-CR-1068
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 18, 2017Background
- Christopher N. Kennedy pled guilty to two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug (Level 5 felonies) for two separate sales of less than one gram of heroin to a confidential informant in Dec. 2014 and Jan. 2015.
- Kennedy admitted to an habitual offender enhancement as to one count; the enhancement was applied to one conviction and dismissed as to the other.
- The trial court sentenced Kennedy to concurrent terms of 4.5 years for each Level 5 conviction, plus a 4-year habitual-offender enhancement to one count, producing an aggregate executed term of 8.5 years.
- Kennedy challenged the aggregate sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the offenses were nonviolent, involved limited quantities, and his family responsibilities and purportedly good character merited a reduction.
- The State argued the sentence was supported by Kennedy’s extensive criminal history, prior leniency, probation violations, and ongoing substance abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kennedy’s 8.5‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given convictions and habitual‑offender finding (State implicitly) | Sentence is inappropriate because offenses were nonviolent, involved small amounts, and Kennedy’s family/character justify reduction | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given nature of offense and Kennedy’s character |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (explaining Appellate Rule 7(B) independent review authority)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (defining "nature of the offense" and "character of the offender" inquiry)
- Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (clarifying aspects of the 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (placing burden on appellant to show both prongs favor revision)
- Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012) (noting advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (discussing need for demonstration of substantial virtuous traits to justify downward revision)