Emmanuel Arrington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A04-1605-CR-1207
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- In June 2014, while on parole, Emmanuel Arrington used two counterfeit credit cards at a Kokomo nightclub, charging $400 and $700 to two victims' cards; police later found the counterfeit cards on his clothing after a separate shooting investigation.
- Arrington reimbursed the nightclub for the counterfeit transactions before he was charged; the State initially filed multiple forgery, fraud, counterfeiting, corrupt business influence, and identity deception counts.
- After additional arrests in February 2016 (including attempted murder and unlawful possession charges) and a bond revocation, Arrington entered a plea in April 2016: guilty to two counts of class D felony identity deception; other charges dismissed; parties capped executed sentence at four years.
- At sentencing, Arrington urged mitigators: undue hardship on his elderly father and two minor children and his pre-charge restitution; the court emphasized his extensive criminal history (13 felonies, 11 misdemeanors), commission while on parole, and pending new charges.
- The trial court imposed two consecutive 2-year executed terms (four years aggregate), concluding Arrington should not remain in the community.
- Arrington appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not finding/weighting mitigators and by considering pending charges as aggravators, and that the four-year sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Arrington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by failing to find/weight mitigation and by considering pending charges as aggravators | Trial court properly weighed mitigators against strong aggravators (criminal history, parole status, pending charges); sentencing within discretion | Court failed to find undue hardship and restitution as meaningful mitigators; considering pending charges was improper or overemphasized | No abuse of discretion: court acknowledged hardship and restitution but reasonably assigned greater weight to criminal history and pending charges were permissible aggravators |
| Whether the four-year executed sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence reflects defendant’s character and conduct; within statutory maximum and supported by record | Four-year maximum is excessive given restitution and nature of offenses | Sentence not inappropriate: defendant’s extensive criminal history, recidivism, and contemporaneous charges justify maximum sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and harmless abuse of discretion framework)
- Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion defined in sentencing review)
- Healy v. State, 969 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court not required to accept defendant’s view of mitigating factors)
- Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1999) (imprisonment’s effect on children not automatically undue hardship absent special circumstances)
- Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. 1991) (pending charges may be considered as aggravating circumstances)
- Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (maximum sentence not necessarily inappropriate because worse scenarios can be imagined)
- Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) focuses on whether sentence is inappropriate)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (limits of prior presumptive sentencing—explained as inapplicable to Indiana’s advisory scheme)
- Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005) (clarifies Blakely’s inapplicability to Indiana’s advisory sentencing)
- Rogers v. State, 897 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (same: advisory sentencing scheme post-amendment)