James A. Pequignot, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1702-CR-466
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- On May 23, 2016, James A. Pequignot drove a vehicle while intoxicated, failed to signal, fled a police traffic stop by car and on foot, and forcibly resisted arrest, injuring an officer. Breath tests showed BACs of .123% and .134%.
- The State charged multiple counts, including two level 6 felony resisting law enforcement counts and a class A misdemeanor OWI; Pequignot pled guilty to two level 6 felonies and one class A misdemeanor.
- The trial court placed Pequignot in Allen County Drug Court under a participation agreement; he violated the program (missed/positive/diluted screens, failed treatment, absconded) and Drug Court participation was terminated.
- At sentencing the court found mitigation (guilty plea, acceptance, remorse) and aggravation (extensive criminal history, failed rehabilitative attempts, absconding while in Drug Court).
- The trial court entered convictions and imposed concurrent two‑and‑one‑half year terms for the level 6 felonies and a concurrent one‑year term for the misdemeanor, for an aggregate sentence of two and one‑half years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 2.5‑year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence appropriate given offenses and offender's history | Pequignot: sentence is excessive; should be no more than the level 6 advisory (1 year) | Court: sentence not inappropriate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review of sentencing receives considerable deference to trial court)
- Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011) (focus appellate review on aggregate sentence)
- Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (advisory sentence as starting point for nature-of-offense analysis)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant's criminal history is relevant to character)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (7(B) review asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence might be more appropriate)