Jovonta Pointer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec)
45A03-1612-CR-2831
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 19, 2017Background
- On Oct. 19, 2012, Pointer and an accomplice burglarized Jerry Hood’s home; Hood was fatally shot by Pointer’s accomplice during the incident.
- Pointer was arrested, initially charged with felony murder; later charged with burglary and attempted burglary.
- On Sept. 2, 2016, Pointer pled guilty to Class A felony burglary pursuant to a plea agreement capping his sentence at 25 years (State dismissed murder charge).
- At sentencing, the State presented victim-impact materials and two witnesses; Pointer proffered two character witnesses and sought to call a third, which the trial court excluded as cumulative.
- The trial court found no mitigators, found aggravators (criminal history and drug use), and imposed a 25-year sentence (within 20–50 year statutory range; advisory 30 years).
- Pointer appealed, arguing (1) improper exclusion of a character witness, (2) improper consideration of mitigators/aggravators, and (3) that the sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pointer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of third character witness at sentencing | Trial court properly limited cumulative testimony; Pointer had opportunity to present character evidence via two witnesses and offer of proof | Court abused discretion and violated statutory/due process rights by excluding third character witness (cites Wilson) | No abuse: exclusion of cumulative witness was harmless; Pointer still presented character testimony and made offer of proof |
| Failure to find mitigators / reliance on aggravators | Trial court permissibly found no mitigators; plea and remorse not required to be credited when defendant received substantial benefits; criminal history and drug use supported aggravators | Court should have found mitigators: guilty plea, remorse, youth, lack of adult record | No abuse: plea produced substantial benefit (dismissal of murder, capped term); remorse not argued below; juvenile adjudications and admitted daily marijuana use supported court's findings |
| Sentence inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | 25-year sentence is within statutory range and justified by offense and offender’s character | 25 years is excessive given Pointer’s youth, guilty plea, and limited record | Sentence affirmed: not inappropriate considering burglary that led to a homicide, Pointer’s delay in identifying accomplice, juvenile adjudications, and drug use |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 865 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s opportunity to present personal information and witnesses at sentencing violated statutory and due process rights)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing statements and abuse of discretion)
- Sensback v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 1999) (defendant who receives substantial benefit from plea is not automatically entitled to have plea treated as a mitigating factor)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Appellate Rule 7(B) review of sentence)