Laster v. State, 956 N.E.2d 187

Anthony Laster and an unidentified accomplice robbed four victims in their Fort Wayne apartment; Laster was linked to the crimes by possession of a stolen Blackberry and victim identifications].
The victims identified Laster in photographic lineups; his defense claimed the phone was bought by his stepfather but he denied participation in the robbery.
Before trial, Laster moved for a continuance to locate two potential witnesses (Molly and Avery Wilkens); the court denied the motion.
Laster was convicted on four counts of class B felony robbery and one count of class B felony burglary, with aggregate sentence of forty years executed.
On appeal, Laster challenged the continuance denial and the sentence as unwarranted; the court affirmed convictions but remanded to revise the sentence to eight years executed and two suspended on each count for a total of thirty-two years executed and eight suspended.
The case discusses continuance standards under Elmore and appellate review of sentencing under Anglemyer and related Indiana authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion	Laster asserts continuance was required to investigate new witnesses.	State contends Molly Wilkens lacked credibility and locating them was unlikely.	No abuse; denial within discretion given lack of material likelihood to locate witnesses.
Whether the sentence is inappropriate given the offenses and offender	Laster argues aggregate time is excessive given circumstances and minor prior record.	State argues consecutive sentences justified by multiple victims and weapon use.	Partially inappropriate; remanded to reduce to eight years executed and two suspended per count, with consecutive robbery sentences and concurrent burglary.
Whether the court properly identified mitigating and aggravating factors			Court properly weighed factors; but sentence reduction appropriate under appellate review.

Vaughn v. State, 590 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. 1992) (continuance right when witness absence is material and unavailability is shown)
Elmore v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind.1995) (criteria for continuance affidavits and due diligence requirements)
Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. 2010) (considerations in reducing sentences for young offenders with some rehabilitation potential)
Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 (Ind.2010) (consecutive sentences justified by multiple victims but aggregate time may be adjusted)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.Ct. App.2008) (independent appellate review of sentence for appropriateness)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.2008) (focus on aggregate sentence in mixed offenses)
Kemp v. State, 887 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (reduction of sentences to meet restitution goals)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (principles for reviewing sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B))