James N. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
89A04-1703-CR-649
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- On May 23–24, 2015, James N. Hamilton broke into Gary Robinson’s home, spent over five hours inside, and stole a shotgun, ammunition, foreign currency, ~60 canned food items, and ~60 bags of deer meat; property was ransacked and damaged.
- Surveillance footage captured Hamilton committing the burglary; deputies identified and arrested him the next day.
- The State charged Hamilton with Level 4 felony burglary; a jury convicted him of burglary and Hamilton pled guilty to being a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced Hamilton to 12 years for the Level 4 felony (advisory = 6 years) and an additional 19 years as a habitual offender, for an aggregate 31-year sentence.
- Hamilton appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the sentence was inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character and contending the court gave insufficient mitigating weight to his habitual-offender admission.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the sentence not inappropriate in light of the offense (lengthy, invasive burglary with substantial damage and theft) and Hamilton’s extensive criminal history and failure of prior rehabilitative sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 31‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: sentence is within statutory range and justified by offense gravity and offender’s history | Hamilton: sentence is excessive; court gave only minimal weight to his habitual‑offender plea and he is not beyond redemption | Affirmed — sentence not inappropriate given offense and persistent, long‑standing criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (describes appellate review of sentence appropriateness)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (appellate goal is to determine whether sentence is inappropriate, not to second‑guess trial court)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (criminal history is a relevant factor in assessing offender’s character)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as starting point for review of deviations)
- Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (compare offense to typical offense when assessing departure)
- Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2000) (trial court not required to assign proffered mitigator defendant's preferred weight)
- Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (failure to present cogent argument waives appellate review)