Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1702-CR-245
Ind. Ct. App.Jul 31, 2017Background
- On January 14, 2016, Edward Chandler entered a Dollar General, displayed the butt of a handgun, demanded money, and took about $95 after throwing candy on the counter to force a sale.
- Store surveillance and an anonymous tip led police to obtain a search warrant for Chandler’s apartment, where officers found a handgun and shoes matching those in the video.
- Chandler turned himself in the day after the search and confessed.
- The State charged Chandler with Level 3 felony robbery and Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; it also filed an habitual offender enhancement.
- A jury found Chandler guilty of the lesser-included offense of Level 5 felony robbery; the State dismissed the firearm charge and habitual offender enhancement.
- The trial court sentenced Chandler to six years (the maximum advisory term for a Level 5 felony). Chandler appealed, arguing the sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chandler’s six-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: Sentence is appropriate given defendant’s criminal history and the statutory framework | Chandler: Sentence is excessive because the offense facts were not especially egregious; he turned himself in, showed remorse, and had engaged in past rehabilitative services | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate based on nature of the offense and defendant’s extensive criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentencing under Rule 7(B))
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as starting point for appropriateness review)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on sentencing review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (compare offense to the typical offense when deviating from advisory)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (import of prior criminal history in assessing character)
- Speer v. State, 995 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (extensive similar criminal history can support sentence above advisory)