80 N.E.3d 182
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Kyle W. Dilts was convicted at jury trial of two counts of Class A felony child molesting for repeated sexual abuse of his daughter over a multi-year period; one conviction (Count 2) was vacated by the trial court at initial sentencing but later reinstated on the State’s cross-appeal.
- Trial and medical evidence showed repeated digital, oral, and penile intercourse; a pediatric exam found a significant hymenal transection consistent with abuse.
- At the first sentencing the court imposed 36 years on Count 1 and vacated Count 2; on appeal the Court of Appeals reinstated Count 2 and remanded for sentencing on that count.
- At the second sentencing hearing (nearly two years later) the court heard additional evidence about ongoing harm to the victim and that Dilts had been charged with molesting a different child; the court then imposed 36 years on Count 2, to run consecutively to Count 1 (aggregate 72 years).
- Dilts appealed the second sentence, arguing (1) abuse of discretion because the court relied on the same facts twice to increase aggregate punishment and (2) the sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dilts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in resentencing on Count 2 | Court permissibly resentenced after conviction was reinstated and relied on facts and new evidence presented at the second hearing | Court impermissibly relied on the same facts already addressed at first sentencing to increase aggregate punishment | No abuse of discretion: court considered additional facts at second hearing and had authority to impose consecutive sentences |
| Whether aggregate 72-year sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | Sentence is supported by severity of repeated abuse, physical injury, harm to victim, and offender’s breach of trust | 72 years is excessive given lack of prior criminal history, military service, good behavior in custody, and rehabilitation goals | Not inappropriate: sentence within statutory range, serious culpability and severe harm justify consecutive 36-year terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing determinations and identified ways a trial court may abuse discretion)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on Anglemyer principles)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (role and limits of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Gilliam v. State, 901 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences; a single aggravator can justify consecutive terms)
- Tyson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 88 (Ind. 2016) (sentencing objectives include retribution and deterrence)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (presumption of vindictiveness requires reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness; burden on defendant to show actual vindictiveness)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (limitations on presumption of vindictiveness in resentencing)