Jerod Lee Grenard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1705-CR-1037
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- In 2016 Jerod Grenard, a serious violent felon, lived with his parents; he stored a .22 handgun in his grandmother’s locked safe after moving firearms out of the house.
- While intoxicated and using synthetic drugs and nonprescribed Xanax, Grenard assaulted his father, threatened and shoved his 81-year-old grandmother, and put a knife to her throat; officers later found drugs and drug paraphernalia in his bedroom.
- Police obtained a warrant to search the grandmother’s safe and recovered the handgun plus personal items in Grenard’s name.
- The State charged multiple counts; Grenard pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Level 4), criminal recklessness while armed (Level 6), battery (Class A misdemeanor), and possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance (Level 6); other counts were dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Grenard to an aggregate of 13 years (8 years for the Level 4, 2 years for a Level 6, suspended 2-year Level 6, and a suspended 1-year misdemeanor term to community corrections).
- Grenard appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing his aggregate sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 13-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | The State: sentence is appropriate given the severity, threats with a knife, possession of firearm as a felon, and extensive substance-abuse-linked conduct and criminal history | Grenard: sentence is excessive; firearm was stored in a locked safe five miles away and he should be placed in community corrections or probation to address substance abuse | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; trial court acted within sentencing range and considered nature of offenses and offender’s character |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sentence under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (nature of the offense and character of the offender framework)
- Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (interpreting the two-prong Appellate Rule 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on appellant to show both prongs favor revision)
- Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (relevance of criminal history to offender character)
- Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 2005) (arrests vs. convictions in assessing character and risk of reoffending)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (challenge to placement requires showing placement itself is inappropriate)