Jakob Robinson v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 357
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jakob Robinson, a 37-year-old high-school teacher and coach, engaged in repeated sexual acts (intercourse, digital penetration, oral sex) with a 16-year-old student who served as his teacher’s assistant.
- The sexual contacts occurred during and after school over several months and included at least one incident at his parents’ home while his minor daughters were present elsewhere in the house. Robinson bought gifts for the student and told her he loved her.
- The student reported the relationship to police on January 9, 2015; the State charged Robinson with five counts of child seduction (Level 5 felonies).
- Robinson pleaded guilty to all five counts without a plea agreement. The trial court found multiple aggravators (age gap, abuse of trust/manipulation, repetitive offenses, emotional harm to victim, violation of no-contact order, manner of offenses) and several mitigators (guilty plea, no prior record, remorse, work/community/family support).
- The court imposed an aggregate eight-year sentence: five years executed in the Department of Correction and three years suspended to probation. Robinson appealed, arguing the sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson’s eight-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | State: sentence supported by multiple aggravators and within statutory exposure; not inappropriate | Robinson: sentence excessive given single victim, relatively narrow timeframe, guilty plea, lack of prior record, community support; position-of-trust aggravator duplicates elements | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; aggravators support imposed term and mitigators explain why sentence was not higher |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court’s recognition of aggravators/mitigators guides appropriateness review)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review’s principal role is to correct outliers in sentencing)
- Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (trial court may consider particularized circumstances of offense elements as aggravating factors)