Coleman v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1631
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Coleman pled guilty to Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a SVF, with confinement charge dismissed, and sentencing left to the trial court.
- The trial court imposed forty-five years for conspiracy and fifteen years for SVF, to be served consecutively, totaling sixty years.
- The State’s co-defendants received substantially different sentences (e.g., Davis, Hobson, Frazier, Warren).
- On appeal, Coleman argues the sixty-year aggregate exceeds the maximum for a single episode of criminal conduct and is otherwise inappropriate.
- Indiana law addresses consecutive sentencing limits under IC 35-50-1-2; the court must ensure the aggregate does not exceed the advisory sentence for a higher-class felony.
- The court ultimately held the aggregate sentence cannot exceed fifty-five years and remanded to reduce the conspiracy sentence to forty years, for a total of fifty-five years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sixty-year sentence exceeds the single-episode limit | Coleman | Coleman | Aggregate must not exceed fifty-five years |
| Whether the fifty-five-year total is inappropriate | Coleman argues undue harshness; Rule 7(B) review | State asserts sentence appropriate given culpability and harm | Fifty-five years not inappropriate; no further reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. 2000) (attempts to commit a crime not necessarily a crime of violence; informs single-episode limit)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (disparity considerations under Rule 7(B))
- Johnson v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. 2001) (conspiracy and underlying offense can coexist; double jeopardy limitations explained)
- Conn v. State, 948 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (conspiracy does not require actual commission of underlying crime)
- McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. 2001) (aggravating circumstances focus on consequences and culpability)
- Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (youthful age as mitigating factor considered in context)