John Prater v. State of Indiana
59 N.E.3d 314
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 17, 2015, John Prater told a passenger to discard a bag containing methamphetamine manufacturing waste from his vehicle; the passenger complied.
- Charged Dec. 15, 2015 with Level 6 felony aiding in dumping controlled substance waste and a misdemeanor; pleaded guilty to the Level 6 felony on Dec. 17, 2015.
- Sentenced Jan. 14, 2016 to 1.5 years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).
- Statutory change in I.C. § 35-38-3-3(d) (effective Dec. 31, 2015) limits courts’ ability to commit persons convicted of Level 6 felonies to DOC except in specified circumstances.
- Prater challenged the DOC commitment as barred by the post-Dec. 31, 2015 statute and separately argued his 1.5-year term was inappropriate under App. R. 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering DOC commitment contrary to I.C. § 35-38-3-3(d) | State: statute applies only to convictions entered after Dec. 31, 2015; sentencing here was permissible | Prater: statute applies to sentences imposed after Dec. 31, 2015, so DOC commitment was barred | Court: statute bars committing a person to DOC after Dec. 31, 2015; because Prater was sentenced after that date and exception did not apply, DOC commitment was improper — reversed and remanded for resentencing in compliance with the statute |
| Whether the 1.5-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence justified by defendant's criminal history and substance abuse | Prater: offense was not egregious, so sentence is inappropriate | Court: given Prater’s significant criminal history, probation violations, and severe substance abuse, the sentence is not inappropriate — affirmed as to length |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing statements and abuses of discretion)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on reh’g)
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (degree of deference in Rule 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Rule 7(B) review)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of aggregate penal consequences under Rule 7(B))
- Pedraza v. State, 887 N.E.2d 77 (Ind. 2008) (background on Indiana’s advisory sentencing scheme)