Kayla M. Youngs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
39A01-1701-CR-116
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Youngs sold Hydrocodone to a confidential informant in two controlled buys (30 pills each; total weights ~12 g and 12.63 g) in Sept. and Oct. 2015.
- State charged two counts of dealing a narcotic drug as Level 2 felonies; plea agreement reduced both to Level 5 felonies; sentencing left to the court.
- Pre-trial supervision revealed missed appointments and at least one positive instant methamphetamine screen; Youngs failed to provide a confirmatory urine sample when requested.
- Youngs pleaded guilty and requested concurrent three-year sentences suspended to probation with Community Corrections; the court instead imposed concurrent three-year executed sentences (the advisory term) but recommended placement in DOC’s GRIP Therapeutic Community Program and said it would consider modification to probation after program completion.
- Youngs appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion (inadequate sentencing statement; failure to find mitigating factors) and that her sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Youngs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused sentencing discretion by failing to provide adequate reasons | Court properly imposed advisory term; no sentencing statement required when advisory sentence imposed; court explained rationale for executed sentence (treatment necessity) | Trial court failed to give adequate recitation of reasons for the three-year executed sentence | No abuse: advisory sentence was imposed so statutory amendment excused a detailed statement; court’s remarks showed treatment-driven rationale |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not identifying mitigating factors | Acceptance of mitigating factors is discretionary; even if omitted, court would have imposed same advisory term | Court failed to identify/credit multiple mitigating factors (minimal criminal history, caretaker status, restitution, plea saved resources, likely to succeed on probation) | No abuse: trial court not required to find proffered mitigators and imposed the advisory term Youngs requested, with an avenue for modification after treatment |
| Whether sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence (advisory 3 years concurrent) is reasonable given relapse, noncompliance, and need for intensive, accountable treatment; court conditioned modification on program completion | Executed advisory sentence is excessive given Youngs’ limited history and positive character traits; requested suspension to probation | Not inappropriate: appellate court gave deference; treatment need and pretrial noncompliance justify executed sentence with program placement and possible later modification |
| Whether invited-error doctrine bars Youngs’ challenge to the three-year term | Youngs requested three-year concurrent terms suspended; invited-error doctrine precludes attacking a sentence she requested | Youngs argues the court still erred in imposing execution rather than suspension | Invited-error applied to term requested; appellate review upheld method of service because court explained treatment rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing-statement requirements and standards for abuse of sentencing discretion)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on sentencing statement principles)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (invited-error doctrine preventing a party from challenging an error it invited)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) and principles guiding sentence revision)
- Parks v. State, 22 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. 2014) (deference to trial court’s sentencing judgment)
- Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discretionary nature of finding mitigating circumstances)
- Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Richardson v. State, 906 N.E.2d 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point for appropriateness review)