Everett Wade v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1610-CR-2427
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 21, 2017Background
- Everett Wade pleaded guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) with a prior conviction and to being a habitual vehicular substance offender for offenses occurring in Feb and May 2016.
- Both offenses occurred within five years of a 2012 OWI conviction; the May offense occurred while Wade was released pending trial on the February charge.
- Wade has an extensive criminal history: four prior felonies (including dealing in cocaine and child molesting), multiple misdemeanors, three prior OWI convictions, repeated probation/community corrections violations, and prior opportunities for treatment/programming.
- At sentencing the trial court found aggravators: extensive criminal history (especially prior OWIs), numerous supervision violations, and failure to utilize prior programming; mitigation: guilty pleas and apparent remorse.
- The trial court imposed consecutive terms producing an aggregate seven-year sentence with one year suspended to probation (six years executed). Wade appealed, arguing the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wade's aggregate seven-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: Sentencing was appropriate given aggravators (criminal history, probation violations, failure to benefit from programs) and deference to trial court discretion. | Wade: Sentence is excessive; offenses were "run-of-the-mill" OWIs with no injury or damage, and his character shows mitigation (acceptance of responsibility, employment, caregiving). | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given nature of offenses and Wade's extensive criminal history and recidivism. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing Appellate Rule 7(B) authority to revise sentences)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard: review whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be better)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (trial court sentencing receives considerable deference; appellate role is to "leaven the outliers")
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (advisory sentence as starting point in Appellate Rule 7(B) review)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (procedural guidance for sentencing review)