James Matthew Caudill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 72A01-1609-CR-2066

On Nov. 7, 2015, James Caudill and an accomplice returned to a pawnshop in Scott County, Indiana; Caudill entered with a gun (fitted with a homemade silencer) and later admitted shooting and killing the 78‑year‑old owner, John Turner, during a robbery.
Police recovered the murder weapon, silencer, stolen cash, jewelry, and a matching shell casing; jail calls and other evidence tied Caudill to concealment efforts after arrest.
The State charged Caudill with multiple counts including murder and robbery and gave notice it might seek life without parole; a conditional plea on July 28, 2016 resolved counts to one murder and one Level 5 robbery with sentencing left to the court (range 50–85 years including firearm enhancement).
At an August 11, 2016 sentencing hearing the court found multiple aggravators (criminal history, probation violation, victim elderly, planning/lying in wait, concealment) and declined to treat Caudill’s late guilty plea and oral remorse as mitigators.
The court imposed 65 years for murder enhanced by 20 years for firearm use, plus concurrent 6 years for robbery, for an aggregate 85‑year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guilty plea should be a mitigating factor	State argued plea timing/benefit reduced its weight; plea was pragmatic	Caudill argued his guilty plea merited mitigation credit	Court: No abuse of discretion; plea was late, pragmatic, and provided substantial benefit to defendant
Whether Caudill's statement of remorse is a mitigating factor	State: court may reject remorse based on credibility	Caudill: his remorse warranted mitigation	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court may assess sincerity and need not find remorse mitigating
Whether the court improperly used "imposition of a reduced sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime" as an aggravator	State: the court properly considered that reasoning among others	Caudill: relying on Taylor, said that use is improper to justify maximum sentence	Court: Mathews controls — use of that rationale was not error; even if improper, other valid aggravators support sentence

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing for abuse of discretion and treatment of aggravators/mitigators)
Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2000) (trial court not required to find or equally weight mitigators)
Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006) (discusses limits on using “depreciate the seriousness” as an aggravator)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (clarifies that a court may enhance sentence based on concern that a lesser sentence would depreciate the crime)
Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (timing of plea affects its mitigating value)
Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (guilty plea may not be mitigating when plea confers substantial benefit or evidence is overwhelming)
Phelps v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1009 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court entitled to assess genuineness of remorse)