Lisa G. King v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
90A02-1610-CR-2469
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Lisa G. King was arrested after methamphetamine precursors, stolen firearms, and prescription medication were found in a vehicle associated with her and Daniel Zerbe, Sr.; empty prescription bottles belonging to King were discovered in a makeup bag containing methylprednisolone.
- Initially charged with four felonies (including Level 4 dealing and Level 5 possession of precursors), King pleaded guilty to a new charge: Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine; the State dismissed the original four charges.
- King's plea agreement contained no sentencing cap; she admitted frequent methamphetamine use and a history of prior drug-related convictions and rehabilitation attempts.
- At sentencing the trial court credited the guilty plea "some weight," noted King received a substantial benefit from dismissal of original charges, and found her criminal history warranted enhancement.
- The trial court imposed an executed two-year sentence (the upper end of the Level 6 range). King appealed alleging abuse of discretion and that the sentence is inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing? | State: court properly weighed mitigators/aggravators and relied on criminal history; no abuse. | King: court improperly discounted mitigating weight of her guilty plea because charges were dismissed. | No abuse; weight assigned to plea is for trial court and not subject to appellate reversal. |
| Is the two-year sentence inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)? | State: sentence is supported by defendant's drug history, related prior convictions/arrests, and unsuccessful rehab attempts. | King: sentence is excessive given plea and unclear strength of original charges. | Not inappropriate; two-year term affirmed given character and offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference and consideration in appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (principles guiding Rule 7(B) review)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of all penal consequences on review)
- Marlett v. State, 878 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (assessing mitigating weight of guilty plea when State dismisses charges)
- Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discussion of pragmatic pleas and mitigating weight)
- Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. 1991) (permissible consideration of arrest history and pending charges in sentencing)
- Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (similar treatment of arrests/pending charges in character assessment)