Lamarr Rondell Coleman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1706-CR-1202
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- On August 2, 2016, Lamarr Coleman and an accomplice robbed an Indianapolis liquor store; the accomplice assaulted the clerk while Coleman took cash and two bottles of whiskey.
- Police arrived during the robbery and arrested both defendants at the scene.
- Coleman was charged with and convicted by jury of Level 3 felony robbery.
- The trial court imposed the nine-year advisory sentence (statutory range 3–16 years), ordering 3 years executed on community corrections and suspending the remaining 6 years to probation.
- Coleman appealed, arguing his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, finding it not inappropriate given the offense and Coleman’s extensive criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nine-year advisory sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State implicitly argues sentence is permissible; did not seek upward revision | Coleman contends the sentence is too harsh given he did not inflict injuries and crime was not premeditated; cites disability, low education, substance use | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; nine years with 3 executed and 6 suspended is reasonable given offense severity and long criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (Supreme Court authority to review and revise sentences under Art. 7 § 4)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) standard permitting sentence revision)
- Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant receiving advisory sentence bears heavy burden to show inappropriateness)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court unless compelling positive evidence about offense or character)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (factors guiding appropriateness review: culpability, severity, and harm)
- Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2013) (appellate review aims to address outlier sentences)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifies inquiry is whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence would be better)
- Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (State must request upward revision to obtain increased sentence)