Edward A. Holt, Jr. v. State of Indiana
62 N.E.3d 462
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Holt pled guilty to two counts of Class C felony child molesting for allowing two young children (ages 5 and 6) to fondle him between Jan. 2010 and Feb. 2011; sentences to run concurrently.
- Plea had no agreed cap; State agreed not to recommend a sentence.
- At sentencing the court found aggravators: a juvenile adjudication for child molesting, a misdemeanor invasion of privacy conviction with a probation revocation, and lack of HS diploma/GED.
- Mitigators found: steady employment, guilty plea, and otherwise limited adult criminal history.
- Trial court imposed the advisory four-year executed term (the advisory for Class C felonies at the time).
- Holt appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) arguing the sentence is inappropriate; the State cross-requested an increase.
Issues
| Issue | Holt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holt's 4-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Advisory sentence is excessive given ordinary nature of offenses and positive indicators of character (low risk to reoffend, employment, remorse, willingness to seek treatment) | Sentence is appropriate; if review occurs, the State asks for an increase to 6 years per count | Court affirmed 4-year concurrent sentences as not inappropriate; declined to increase sentence |
| Whether the appellate court may increase sentence on State request | Holt sought reduction; State asked increase on appeal | State may request increase when defendant seeks appellate sentence revision | Court recognized power to increase but refused here because State did not seek a recommendation at sentencing (implying acceptability of trial sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing and consideration of aggravators/mitigators)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (Appellate Rule 7(B) framework; advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for sentencing review: culpability, severity, harm, and other circumstances)
- McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 2009) (appellate power to increase or decrease sentence; State may request increase on appeal under certain conditions)
- Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation or lack thereof can be a strong indicator that a trial sentence is not inappropriately lenient)