Jordan L. Gosnell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
84A01-1702-CR-365
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- On Feb. 6, 2016, 17-year-old Jordan Gosnell, intoxicated on alcohol and Klonopin, was breaking into cars with several others when he stabbed Lester Hamilton multiple times, causing punctured liver and lung injuries requiring hospitalization.
- The attack occurred twice: initially during a pursuit when Gosnell jumped on Hamilton and stabbed him, and again after Gosnell returned with the group and confronted Hamilton at his house; a 14-year-old was present during the incidents.
- Gosnell was arrested the same morning, was hostile and threatening in custody, referenced gang membership, used racial epithets, and required a spit shield.
- The State charged attempted murder (Level 1), battery by means of a deadly weapon, and intimidation counts; Gosnell pled guilty to an amended Level 3 felony aggravated battery under a plea agreement capping executed time at 12 years and dismissal of other counts.
- The trial court sentenced Gosnell to 11 years with 5 years suspended (6 years executed) and ordered participation in the CLIFF program; Gosnell appealed, arguing sentencing errors and that the sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gosnell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding aggravators | Aggravators were supported: criminal history, crime in presence of minor, on probation, and nature/circumstances | Court improperly found or weighed multiple aggravators (criminal history, probation, nature, other factors) | No error: court properly found criminal history, crime in presence of a minor, and nature/circumstances; even if probation finding doubtful, harmless because other valid aggravators supported sentence |
| Whether nature/circumstances of the crime improperly duplicated elements of offense | Nature/circumstances can be considered if distinct from statutory elements | Nature/circumstances ("brutal" stabbing, intoxication, pattern of thefts) merely restated elements and so were improper | Held proper: court identified facts distinct from the statutory element (repeated attacks, intoxication, escalation) and appropriately used them as aggravators |
| Whether trial court used improper non-statutory aggravators (parents, intoxication, plea/remorse) | Court’s remarks explained why full suspension and placement with parents were inappropriate; remorse/plea discussed only as lack of mitigation | These comments were improper aggravators used to increase sentence | No error: comments were explanatory for denying mitigation or about suitability of probation placement, not independently aggravating the sentence |
| Whether sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence (11 yrs, 5 suspended) is reasonable given offense severity and Gosnell’s character and prior delinquency | Sentence is excessive/inappropriate given Gosnell’s youth and intoxication | Held not inappropriate: substantial deference to trial court; plea agreement limited exposure and supports reasonableness; Gosnell’s prior delinquency, violence, voluntary intoxication, and in-custody hostility justify sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. State, 62 N.E.3d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standards for sentencing error review)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (trial court not required to balance aggravators and mitigators; review limits)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (elements of offense generally not usable as aggravators unless particularized circumstances are distinct)
- McCarthy v. State, 749 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2001) (trial court may consider particularized factual elements as aggravators)
- Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1999) (repeated blows and factual brutality may support nature-and-circumstances aggravator)
- Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (remedy for unsupported aggravators requires confidence that sentence would be the same)
- Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (affirming sentence despite one improper aggravator when others support the sentence)
- Payne v. State, 838 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (plea benefits can lessen mitigating weight of a plea)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (plea agreements limiting sentencing discretion are strong evidence of sentence reasonableness)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) should be deferential; focus on outliers)
- Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2013) (context for appellate sentence-revision standards)
- Smith v. State, 929 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (voluntary intoxication does not mitigate criminal responsibility for sentencing purposes)