John Norris v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 136
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 3, 2013, John Norris (on probation) sold ten hydrocodone tablets to a confidential informant in a videotaped controlled buy for $60 at a location within 1,000 feet of a public park.
- The State charged Norris with Class A felony dealing in a controlled substance (enhanced by proximity to a park) for that buy and a separate Class A felony for a buy the next day; pleadings later resolved by plea agreement.
- Norris pled guilty to Count 1 as a Class B felony; Count 2 and probation-revocation petitions were dismissed. Sentencing was left to the trial court after a PSI.
- PSI showed a mixed criminal history (multiple marijuana possessions, prior suspended sentences, some successful and some violated probations) and documented mental and physical health conditions.
- Trial court found aggravators (criminal history, on probation at time of offense, prior supervision failures) and a limited-weight mitigator (health), and imposed a 20-year executed sentence (the statutory maximum for a Class B felony at the time).
- On appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), Norris challenged the sentence as inappropriate; the Court of Appeals reduced the sentence to 12 years (8 executed, 4 suspended to supervised probation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norris’s 20-year executed sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State argued aggravators justified a sentence above the advisory and asked court to aggravate beyond 12 years | Norris argued the sentence was excessive given the small quantity sold, his health needs, and probation department’s recommendation for 12 years with treatment | Court held the 20-year executed sentence was inappropriate and reduced sentence to 12 years (8 executed, 4 suspended) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (explains appellate authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise sentences deemed inappropriate)
- Parks v. State, 22 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. 2014) (trial court sentencing discretion deserves considerable deference but appellate review remains available)
- Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967 (Ind. 2002) (recognizes differing reasonable views on sentence appropriateness based on culpability and other factors)