Larenz Jordan v. State of Indiana
62 N.E.3d 401
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At age 15, Larenz Jordan participated with two others in a nighttime break‑in of R.H.’s home; the three repeatedly forced R.H. to engage in vaginal and oral intercourse while her children slept in the house, threatened the family, and stole electronics and the family van. The victim suffered physical injuries and psychological harm.
- The State filed a juvenile‑court motion to waive jurisdiction; after a waiver hearing, the juvenile court found the statutory factors satisfied (including that Jordan was beyond rehabilitation) and waived him to adult court.
- The Grant Circuit Court charged Jordan with 12 counts of rape (Level 1), conspiracy to commit rape (Level 1), burglary (Level 4), and robbery (Level 5); a jury convicted him on all counts.
- At sentencing the court imposed maximum terms on each count but ran them concurrently, producing an aggregate executed term of 40 years with 4 years suspended to probation.
- Jordan appealed, raising (1) that the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving jurisdiction (challenging the “beyond rehabilitation” finding, particularly the court’s reference to “criminal thinking”), and (2) that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion in waiving jurisdiction | Waiver supported by evidence; statutory factors satisfied including age, probable cause, heinous felony, lack of rehabilitation, and community safety | Court’s reference to “criminal thinking” required evidence‑based measures of criminogenic traits; absent such data waiver was legally deficient | Affirmed: waiver proper. Court’s use of “criminal thinking” was permissible because the statutory factors were addressed and supported by other waiver‑hearing evidence |
| Whether aggregate 40‑year concurrent sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | Sentence justified by the aggravated, brutal nature of prolonged sexual assaults and threats to children; defendant’s statements and demeanor show poor prospects for rehabilitation | Jordan urged reduction based on youth, lack of prior record, pre‑sentence objective measures, and comparative sentences in other cases | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given heinous offense and Jordan’s character/attitude |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 7(B) review allows appellate courts to revise sentences that are inappropriate in light of offense and offender)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (interpretation of appellate sentence‑revision authority under Article 7 and Rule 7(B))
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifies that Rule 7(B) central inquiry is whether a sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence is preferable)
- Hunt v. State, 43 N.E.3d 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (comparison to other sentences may inform but is not required for Rule 7(B) review)