Juma Haywood v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1701-CR-165
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Juma Haywood was charged with four counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy for repeatedly contacting a victim in violation of a no-contact order.
- A no-contact order had been issued on October 18, 2016; the victim (H.H.) later told the court she invited contact and asked the order be terminated.
- Haywood pled guilty to all four counts on December 14, 2016; sentencing occurred January 12, 2017.
- The trial court found multiple aggravators: extensive criminal history (four juvenile adjudications, thirteen misdemeanors, eight prior felonies) and that Haywood was on probation when these offenses occurred.
- The court found mitigating factors: guilty plea, remorse, and the victim’s statements, but imposed the statutory mid-to-upper-range sentence: two years on each count, to be served concurrently, and terminated the no-contact order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: sentence within statutory range and justified by aggravators | Haywood: four consensual phone calls do not warrant an aggravated/executed sentence | Court: sentence not inappropriate; within range and justified by violation of court order and lengthy criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing, including consideration of aggravators/mitigators)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court’s sentencing due to its unique perspective)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on aggregate sentence rather than specifics)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (may consider all penal consequences under Rule 7(B))
- Smith v. State, 999 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (victim invitation does not nullify a protection order)
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (advisory sentence as a starting point in Rule 7(B) review)
- Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (repeated criminal contacts demonstrate failure to reform and inform character assessment)