Jim A. Edsall v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 73
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Edsall pleaded guilty in Jan 2008 to five counts of Class A felony delivery of methamphetamine and one count of Class A felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.
- Plea Agreement provided a concurrent maximum sentence of 30 years and that parties would argue terms at sentencing; it left some discretion at sentencing.
- Sentencing hearing in Feb 2008 included restitution request of $19,581.40; no restitution mentioned at plea hearing.
- PSI indicated the I.M.A.G.E. Drug Task Force would submit restitution; exhibit detailing investigation costs was admitted.
- Trial court sentenced Edsall to concurrent 30-year terms on six counts, to run consecutive to a Michigan sentence, and ordered restitution and a $2,000 fine.
- Edsall appealed; this is a belated direct appeal after a prior appellate remand on a almost belated notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion | Edsall argues improper aggravators and overlooked mitigating factors | State contends aggravators justified, mitigating factors properly considered | No abuse; valid aggravators and mitigating factors supported the sentence |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate in light of the offense and offender | Edsall claims sentence too harsh given nature/character | State argues sentence aligns with advisory thirty-year terms and offender history | Not appropriate to revise; sentence affirmed on the merits |
| Whether restitution was authorized under statute and proper here | State sought restitution for investigation costs; Edsall challenges authority | State contends restitution is permissible but Edsall challenges the amount/authority | Restitution not proper; trial court lacked statutory authority to order restitution to the State as a victim |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (guidelines for sentencing statements and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Sinn v. State, 693 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (plea agreements preclude additional restitution not in agreement)
- Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (restitution review for unwaived issues and authority to sentence)
- Hendrickson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (State as victim for drug-buy restitution under certain funds expended)
- Green v. State, 811 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (limits on State-as-victim restitution for discovery costs)
- Ault v. State, 705 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (restitution cases involving Medicaid payments and victim costs)