David Greenwell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1612-CR-2941
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- David Greenwell pled guilty in 2001 to one amended count of child molesting (Class A felony) and was sentenced to 30 years with 20 years executed and 10 years suspended to probation.
- In 2016 the State filed petitions to revoke probation alleging unapproved contact with a minor, leaving Indiana without permission, and a sexual relationship with a woman who had a child under 16 without approval.
- At the revocation hearing Greenwell admitted the violations, explained financial motives for travel, and said the relationship was spontaneous; he also noted his paramour was pregnant.
- The trial court found multiple probation violations, expressed distrust of Greenwell’s compliance, revoked probation, and ordered execution of eight years of the ten-year suspended sentence with two years to probation.
- Greenwell appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors and by relying on improper personal/philosophical comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by executing 8 of 10 suspended years after revoking probation | State: Multiple, repeated violations justified executing substantial portion of suspended sentence | Greenwell: Court failed to weigh mitigating factors (admission, remorse, prior probation compliance, family hardship, financial stress) and made improper personal/philosophical remarks | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion given the number and nature of violations; remarks distinguishable from improper commentary in Puckett |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation-revocation sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (probationer who admits violations must be allowed to present mitigating evidence)
- Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial courts not required to balance aggravating/mitigating factors in revocation proceedings)
- Mitchell v. State, 619 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (probation-revocation is execution of an existing sentence, not original sentencing)
- Patterson v. State, 659 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (clarifying aspects of mitigation consideration)
- Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (proper procedures followed allow execution of suspended sentence upon finding violation by preponderance)
- Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court abused discretion when it imposed harsher punishment to send a personal/philosophical message)