Jason W. Green v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
51A01-1702-CR-428
Ind. Ct. App.Sep 5, 2017Background
- Jason W. Green was stopped after failing to fully stop at a sign; a K-9 alerted and officers found scales, $1,189, and 1.4 grams of methamphetamine in his truck.
- State charged Green with Level 4 dealing, Level 6 possession, Level 6 maintaining a common nuisance, and Class C paraphernalia; Green pleaded guilty to Level 5 dealing under a written plea agreement.
- Plea agreement fixed a three-year executed sentence; placement (DOC purposeful incarceration vs. county community corrections) was left to the trial court’s discretion.
- At sentencing the court found two aggravators: (1) Green had been actually dealing methamphetamine in the community for months (beyond the exact crime pleaded to), and (2) Green failed to enroll in a jail substance-abuse class. The court found Green’s plea mitigating.
- Green argued on appeal that the court abused its discretion by ordering incarceration (and by finding an aggravator that merely restated an element) and that his placement was inappropriately harsh; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in placing Green in DOC (purposeful incarceration) rather than community corrections | Placement within court discretion; aggravators supported incarceration | Court abused discretion by relying on an element of the offense and imposing harsh placement | No abuse: placement appropriate given aggravators and record |
| Whether the court improperly used Green’s dealing as an aggravator when that conduct restates the offense | Court may consider particularized circumstances distinct from the crime charged | Aggravator merely restates the offense element (impermissible) | Not improper here: plea was to possession with intent; court relied on admitted, broader dealing conduct not identical to the plea offense |
| Whether the court erred in not finding hardship to Green’s son as a mitigating factor | Hardship not shown or argued at sentencing; defendant waived it | Failure to find hardship is reversible error; child support and custody show hardship | Waived: Green failed to present specific evidence/argument of undue hardship at sentencing, so claim not preserved |
| Whether the three-year placement/sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Due consideration to trial court; facts and character support incarceration | Three-year DOC placement is excessive; community corrections would be sufficient | Not inappropriate: sentence within statutory advisory and placement supported by nature of offense and offender’s character |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sets standard for appellate review of sentencing statements and abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. 1999) (single aggravating circumstance can support enhanced sentence)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (distinguishes material elements from particularized circumstances usable as aggravators)
- Scott v. State, 840 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (same principle regarding particularized circumstances as aggravators)
- Spears v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind. 2000) (failure to present mitigating factor at sentencing generally precludes raising it on appeal)
- Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (describes appellate authority to revise sentences under App. R. 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (explains factors for App. R. 7(B) review: culpability, severity, harm, and other relevant factors)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (recognizes trial court’s unique sentencing perspective and deference on review)