Franklin Wilcox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A04-1706-CR-1447
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Franklin Wilcox was arrested at home while on probation and wanted on an unrelated warrant; officers found his residence filthy with his child present.
- Wilcox admitted to possessing drug paraphernalia and a white powdery synthetic drug (or lookalike) and told officers where items were located.
- The State charged him with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, Level 6 felony possession of a synthetic drug or lookalike substance, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
- Wilcox pled guilty pro se at an initial hearing.
- The trial court found his criminal history a significant aggravator, found no mitigators, and imposed concurrent executed terms resulting in a 2.5-year aggregate sentence (ordered consecutive to other cases).
- Wilcox appealed, challenging sentencing discretion and arguing the aggregate sentence was inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilcox) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its sentencing discretion | Trial court properly considered aggravators and was not required to find the plea or nonviolent nature mitigating | Trial court erred by not treating guilty plea and nonviolent offense as mitigating | No abuse of discretion; plea and nonviolent nature not necessarily mitigating |
| Whether aggregate 2.5-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given squalid conditions, child exposure, extensive criminal history, and recidivism | Sentence is excessive in light of offense nature and defendant's character | Sentence not inappropriate; affirming 2.5 years |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing statements and abuse of discretion)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Rule 7(B) appellate review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (guilty plea may be non‑mitigating when evidence is strong and plea is pragmatic)
- Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2000) (trial court not required to accept defendant’s characterization of mitigating circumstances)