91 N.E.3d 574
Ind.2018Background
- On Feb. 21, 2014, Jacob O. Robinson fled police, attempted to enter a residence without permission (breaking the doorknob), and was charged in Case No. 22C01-1402-FD-377 with multiple felonies and misdemeanors; the State also alleged habitual-offender and habitual-substance-offender enhancements.
- While on bond in Nov. 2014, Robinson fled police in a vehicle and was charged in Case No. 22C01-1411-F6-1932 with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and a habitual-offender allegation.
- Robinson pleaded guilty in Case 377 to Class D felony attempted residential entry and admitted being a habitual substance offender; in Case 1932 he pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. In exchange the State dismissed other charges and habitual-offender allegations.
- The trial court scheduled sentencing for Sept. 24, 2015; Robinson missed two probation appointments and did not appear at sentencing, prompting defense counsel to request a continuance based on a late text from Robinson about a real-estate closing.
- The court denied the continuance, sentenced Robinson in absentia to three years executed (Class D attempted residential entry) and two years executed consecutive (resisting law enforcement), issued a warrant for failure to appear, and later imposed a habitual-substance-offender enhancement of three years (1.5 executed, 1.5 suspended) at a subsequent hearing.
- Robinson appealed, raising (1) denial of the continuance and (2) that the Class D sentence was inappropriate under App. R. 7(B); the Court of Appeals sua sponte reversed on other grounds, this Court granted transfer and addressed Robinson’s two issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of the sentencing hearing | The State argued the court properly exercised discretion given Robinson’s failures to attend probation appointments and his late, informal request | Robinson argued the continuance was justified by a text message indicating a real-estate closing and counsel’s inability to contact him by phone | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; court reasonably relied on Robinson’s missed appointments and conduct |
| Whether the three-year executed sentence for Class D attempted residential entry is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | The State defended the sentence as within statutory range and supported by defendant’s criminal history | Robinson argued the maximum sentence was excessive and inappropriate given the offense and his circumstances | Sentence affirmed; not inappropriate in light of offense and defendant’s extensive criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 2000) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1999) (abuse occurs when decision is against logic and effect of facts)
- Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 2002) (strong presumption trial court properly exercised discretion)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (App. R. 7(B) framework for appellate review of sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose of appellate review is to leaven outliers)
- Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174 (Ind. 2016) (burden on defendant to show sentence is inappropriate)