Keyshawn D. Sanders v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 82
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sanders (age 20) pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and agreed to enter drug court; violation would lead to termination and sentencing on underlying charges.
- Within a month he violated drug-court conditions (dismissed from transitional housing, missed programming), admitted violations, was terminated, and faced sentencing.
- Presentence report showed an extensive juvenile delinquency record (multiple adjudications including offenses that would have been adult misdemeanors and a felony) and two adult marijuana convictions with a probation revocation.
- Sanders claimed at sentencing mixed positions about his substance use and admitted at times he had feigned a drug problem to obtain drug court; the trial court sentenced him to the advisory nine-year term for the Level 3 felony, suspending three years, plus a concurrent six-month misdemeanor term.
- Sanders appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not finding his youth a mitigating factor and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not finding youth as a mitigating factor | State: trial court acted within discretion in weighing factors | Sanders: his youth should be a mitigating factor warranting lesser sentence | No abuse of discretion; court acknowledged youth and permissibly declined to treat it as a mitigator |
| Whether nine-year advisory sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence is appropriate given record and defendant's history | Sanders: sentence inappropriate given his character and potential for rehabilitation | Waived for failing to address nature of offense; on merits, sentence not inappropriate given criminal history and manipulation of drug court |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions and review of aggravating/mitigating findings)
- Smith v. State, 872 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (youth is not automatically a significant mitigator; trial court discretion)
- Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate authority under Art. 7 and Rule 7(B) to review sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing; role of review to "leaven the outliers")
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (appellate relief requires compelling evidence that nature of offense and character favor a different sentence)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Rule 7(B) asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be better)