24 N.E.3d 525
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Phelps appeals an eight-year sentence for possession of cocaine, a Class C felony.
- Jury found Phelps not guilty of dealing in cocaine, a Class A felony.
- Trial court indicated disagreement with the jury verdict at sentencing and stated it would have found him guilty of dealing.
- Court listed several aggravating factors (two prior felonies, probation violations, juvenile history, reoffense risk) and imposed the maximum sentence.
- Court acknowledged the jury’s not-guilty on the greater offense but believed the evidence supported the greater conviction; appellate review focuses on whether this amounts to an abuse of discretion.
- Court remands to vacate the sentence and impose six years; correct the judgment to reflect Phelps was not convicted of a Class A felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing up to the maximum after disagreeing with the jury verdict? | Phelps argues the sentence is tainted by disagreement with the jury. | State contends aggravators justify the sentence independent of the verdict. | Yes; the sentence was abuse of discretion and suspect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gambill v. State, 436 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. 1982) (trial court improperly enhanced sentence to compensate for jury acquittal of a greater offense)
- Hammons v. State, 493 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. 1986) (sentence enhancement tied to disagreement with jury verdict improper; remand for resentencing)
- Wilson v. State, 458 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. 1984) (acknowledged skepticism of jury verdict but not outright opposition (distinguishes from Hammons))
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard of review for sentencing abuses; requires supported reasons)
- Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2012) (reiterates proper sentencing considerations under Anglemyer)