Jose Guzman v. State of Indiana
985 N.E.2d 1125
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Guzman involved in a high-speed October 2, 2011 collision; Bland died and Austin was severely injured.
- Guzman had a BAC of 0.20 at the time of the accident.
- Guzman pled guilty to one count of Class C felony reckless homicide; remaining charges were dismissed.
- Trial court sentenced Guzman to eight years and ordered restitution to Bland’s Estate/Family and to Austin.
- Guzman appeals challenging restitution to Austin and the sentencing as abusive or inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution to Austin valid | Austin was a victim of Guzman’s criminal acts. | Austin was not a victim of the plea-related charged crime and restitution lacks evidentiary support. | Restitution to Austin upheld; Austin qualifies as a victim and evidence supports amount. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for restitution amount | The addendum to the pre-sentence report provides a precise loss figure. | Evidence insufficient to support restitution amount. | Evidence sufficient; amount supported by pre-sentence documentation. |
| Aggravating factors at sentencing | Court properly relied on multiple valid aggravators including bodily injury, history, pending case, immigration status, and license suspension. | Some aggravators, like bodily injury or immigration status, were improperly considered. | Court acted within discretion; valid aggravators supported the sentence. |
| Mitigating factors and Bland’s conduct | Court did not need to credit Bland’s conduct as substantial mitigation given record. | Court should have given more weight to Bland’s actions as mitigating. | Court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error in weighing mitigating factors. |
| Overall sentence appropriateness | Eight-year term appropriate given offense nature and offender's characteristics. | Sentence is manifestly unreasonable and excessive. | Sentence affirmed as appropriate under appellate standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 848 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (restjudgment restitution purpose and discretion)
- Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for restitution orders)
- Carswell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (pre-sentencing medical costs and evidence basis)
- T.C. v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (evidence sufficiency for restitution loss)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (consideration of dismissed-charges facts in aggravation after plea)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (need for detailed sentencing statements)
- Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (illegal immigrant status as aggravating factor)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (victim impact as potential aggravator—when appropriate)