Demetrius Tate v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 79A02-1612-CR-2909

Tate pled guilty to operating a vehicle while privileges were forfeited for life (Level 5 felony) after being charged in June 2016; sentencing occurred November 17, 2016.
The trial court reviewed the presentence report and noted Tate’s extensive criminal history, multiple probation revocations, failures to appear, and rejection from community corrections.
The court identified as aggravators: criminal history, probation violations, failures to appear, and committing the instant offense while out on bond; the court also referenced the probation department’s high-risk-to-reoffend assessment.
The court treated Tate’s guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance but concluded aggravators outweighed the mitigator.
The court imposed an executed sentence of three years with one year suspended (four-year sentence, one year probation), one year above the advisory term for a Level 5 felony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by relying on probation department risk score as an aggravator	State defends sentencing based on criminal history and risk to reoffend identified in report	Tate argues the probation risk-assessment score cannot serve as an aggravating circumstance	Court held the risk assessment was used appropriately as supporting information and, even if mischaracterized, other valid aggravators alone justify the sentence
Whether sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	State argues sentence is appropriate given Tate’s repetitive criminal conduct and poor response to prior leniency	Tate contends the four-year sentence is excessive relative to the offense and his character improvements	Court held Tate failed to show the sentence was inappropriate given his lengthy criminal history and recidivism

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions and evaluation of aggravators/mitigators)
Malenchik v. State, 938 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010) (risk-assessment tools may supplement sentencing but do not by themselves constitute aggravators)
Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statements about risk to reoffend derive from criminal history and are legitimate observations at sentencing)
Morgan v. State, 829 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. 2005) (discussion of risk and sentencing observations)
Hackett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999) (a single valid aggravator may support an enhanced sentence)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Appellate Rule 7(B) review)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifies App. R. 7(B) framework)
Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2006) (defendant must show inappropriateness as to both nature of offense and character)