Jonathon D. Reis v. State of Indiana
65A01-1707-CR-1563
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Early Feb 19, 2017 Reis was found asleep in a running SUV blocking two westbound lanes; vehicle rolled into a guardrail when he lifted his foot off the brake. Officers smelled alcohol and found an almost-empty vodka bottle.
- Reis’s driving privileges had been forfeited for life as an habitual traffic offender; PBT readings showed .21 BAC twice; he refused a jail breathalyzer.
- State charged Reis with (1) operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life (Level 5 felony) and (2) operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person (Class A misdemeanor). Reis pleaded guilty to both counts.
- At sentencing the court emphasized Reis’s extensive criminal history (17 prior convictions, including similar offenses and four felonies) and his serious alcohol problem, calling the conduct egregious.
- The court imposed five years (near-maximum) on the Level 5 felony to be served at the Department of Correction, consecutive to one year (maximum) in community corrections for the misdemeanor.
- Reis appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character; the State argued waiver because Reis conceded the offense was egregious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reis’s sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: Reis waived review of the nature-of-offense prong by conceding egregiousness; sentence is appropriate given facts and history. | Reis: Sentence is inappropriate in light of his character (guilty plea, desire for treatment, period without convictions). | Court affirmed: sentence is not inappropriate; nature of the offense and Reis’s extensive criminal record justify near-maximum consecutive terms. |
| Whether a defendant waives Rule 7(B) review by failing to contest one prong (nature or character) | State: Defendant must show both prongs; failing to argue nature waives review (citing Sanders). | Reis: Court should consider prongs separately; defendant need not prove both to obtain relief. | Court rejects automatic waiver rule; follows Connor and Shoun—prongs are separate inquiries and the court will consider both, but Reis still fails to meet burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference and purpose of Rule 7(B))
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (factors showing positive character may overcome sentence deference)
- Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Rule 7(B) prongs may be treated separately; defendant need not prove both)
- Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (panel held failure to argue nature of offense waives Rule 7(B) review)
- Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635 (Ind. 2017) (supreme court considered a Rule 7(B) claim based solely on character without finding waiver)
- Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 2004) (guilty plea as mitigating factor depends on demonstrated acceptance of responsibility)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (extent to which a guilty plea mitigates varies; plea may be less significant if driven by pragmatism)