Joseph Clingerman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1608-CR-1955
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Clingerman (age 22) met a 14‑year‑old girl online and admitted to having sexual intercourse with her on two occasions in Lafayette between Feb 15 and Mar 31, 2016.
- State charged two counts of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor (Level 4 felonies); Clingerman pleaded guilty to one count under an open plea and the State dismissed the other count per the plea agreement.
- Presentence investigation noted Clingerman’s admissions to two incidents with the same victim; sentencing was open to the court.
- At sentencing the court imposed the advisory term of six years with four years suspended to probation (two years executed in the DOC).
- Clingerman appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in finding aggravators/mitigators and that his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clingerman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding aggravating/mitigating factors | Court may consider facts surrounding dismissed counts when plea is open; PSI admissions are proper for sentencing. | Court improperly relied on facts related to the dismissed count(s) and failed to give weight to mitigating factors. | No abuse: court properly considered multiple incidents admitted in PSI; Farmer is superseded by Bethea. |
| Whether advisory six‑year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence (advisory, with most of term suspended) fits nature of offense and offender; not an outlier. | Sentence is excessive given mitigating circumstances and dismissal of one count. | Sentence affirmed: not inappropriate in light of offense and offender. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (framework for sentencing statement review and appellate limits on reweighing factors)
- Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (appellate options when trial court abuses sentencing discretion)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (trial court may consider facts underlying dismissed counts when plea is open)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) review: compare nature of offense and character of offender)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (principles of appellate revision under App. R. 7(B))
- Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (single valid aggravator can support enhancement)
- Phelps v. State, 914 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (non‑exhaustive lists of aggravating/mitigating circumstances and allowing other factors)