Kurt Muzquiz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
69A04-1703-CR-457
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- In 2015 Muzquiz opened a bank account, deposited $5, the account was closed, then he wrote multiple unfunded checks to businesses totaling over $80,000 for vehicles, trailer, golf carts and services.
- State charged Muzquiz with Level 5 corrupt business influence, Level 5 fraud on a financial institution, Level 6 check fraud, and Level 6 theft; State alleged habitual offender status.
- One day before trial Muzquiz pled guilty to Level 5 corrupt business influence and admitted being an habitual offender; other counts were dismissed.
- Plea agreement capped exposure at 10 years (5 years for the Level 5 felony, 5-year habitual-offender enhancement).
- Trial court imposed five years for the felony and a five-year enhancement (aggregate 10 years executed).
- Muzquiz appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) arguing the ten-year sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Muzquiz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Muzquiz's 10-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given the amount defrauded, deprivation to multiple businesses, Muzquiz’s extensive criminal history, repeated probation violations, and admissions to multiple predicate offenses | Sentence is excessive; requests resentencing to ~3 years because offense caused no personal injury or large pecuniary loss to individuals, cites mental illness, family hardship, remorse, and guilty plea | Affirmed: 10-year aggregate sentence not inappropriate; trial court’s weighing of aggravators and rejection of mitigators was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentence appropriateness and factors to consider)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (role of advisory sentence and sentencing review principles)
- Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (burden on defendant to demonstrate sentence inappropriate)
- Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deference to trial court’s sentencing decision)
- Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (recognition of trial court’s unique sentencing perspective)