Elgin Andrew Fidell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1606-CR-1389
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Fidell and S.T. had an on‑again/off‑again, violent relationship; S.T. obtained a protective (no‑contact) order in April 2015.
- In August–October 2015 (Cause 28361) Fidell was charged and convicted of misdemeanor battery and invasion of privacy arising from acts against S.T.
- On February 15, 2016, Fidell encountered S.T. at a mall, chased her, threw her to the floor, and struck/kicked her twice; mall security and police intervened. S.T. suffered contusions.
- The State charged Fidell in March 2016 for the mall incidents as misdemeanors and alleged his prior convictions (Cause 28361) as enhancements to elevate battery to Level 5 felony and invasion of privacy to Level 6 felony.
- At a bifurcated trial the jury first found Fidell guilty of the underlying misdemeanors; at the enhancement phase fingerprint evidence (match between trial print and Cause 28361 print) and prior conviction records were admitted, and the jury found the enhanced felony counts proved.
- The trial court sentenced Fidell to an aggregate six years (six years with one suspended to probation for Level 5 battery, concurrent two years for Level 6), noting mitigating factors (age, upbringing) and aggravators (extensive criminal history, violence). Fidell appealed sufficiency of evidence for the Level 5 enhancement and argued his sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove the prior conviction was against the same victim (element to elevate battery to Level 5) | State: fingerprint match plus charging information and conviction records tied the prior conviction to Fidell and the charging documents alleged the victim was S.T. | Fidell: evidence did not sufficiently prove the prior battery conviction (Cause 28361) was against S.T., so enhancement fails | Court: Evidence (fingerprint match, charging information, conviction/judgment, victim testimony) was sufficient; appellate court will not reweigh credibility — enhancement sustained |
| Appropriateness of aggregate six‑year sentence under Rule 7(B) | State: offense was more egregious than typical (repeated violation of protective order, two separate attacks, pursuit through mall); defendant’s criminal history and violent conduct justify above‑advisory sentence | Fidell: aggregate six years is inappropriate given mitigating factors (age, troubled upbringing) | Court: Sentence was not inappropriate in light of the offense and defendant’s character; trial court reasonably weighed mitigators and aggravators; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 1995) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on sufficiency review)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Rule 7(B) review and deference to trial court)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (purpose of Rule 7(B) review: determine whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be preferable)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (appellant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as starting point when assessing appropriateness)
- Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (compare offense to typical offense when evaluating departure from advisory)
- Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (enhanced sentence not inappropriate where defendant’s criminal history reflects poorly on character)