113 N.E.3d 611
Ind.2018Background
- In Aug. 2013 police found methamphetamine (3.35 g), cocaine (1.89 g), and meth-manufacturing items at Lisa Livingston’s home; she was charged with multiple felonies and alleged as a habitual substance offender.
- Livingston posted bond, resided at a recovery home (Bliss House), later helped operate a recovery home (BreakAway), started a roofing business, and engaged in extensive community-recovery work while awaiting trial.
- Over four years she filed ten continuance motions (unopposed by the State); she participated voluntarily in community corrections day-reporting, with 381 days of full compliance and negative drug screens.
- In Oct. 2017 Livingston pled guilty to all counts and admitted habitual-offender status without a plea agreement.
- The trial court sentenced her to an aggregate 30-year executed term in the Department of Correction; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, finding the case exceptional under Appellate Rule 7(B), reduced the sentence to the 23-year mandatory minimum, and ordered the remainder to be served in community corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | State argued the 30-year executed DOC sentence was within trial court discretion and appropriate given the serious drug offenses and habitual-offender admission | Livingston argued her post-offense conduct, rehabilitation, cooperation, and sustained community ties make a 30-year executed sentence inappropriate | Court held the sentence was inappropriate under Rule 7(B); after independent review reduced sentence to 23 years (mandatory minimum) and ordered remaining time to be served in community corrections |
| Whether placement in community corrections for the remaining term was permissible | State opposed community placement though acknowledged statutes potentially permitted it | Livingston requested community corrections; submitted evidence of sustained compliance and community corrections’ willingness to supervise her for the full term | Court held that, given unique circumstances and Floyd County Community Corrections’ willingness to supervise, placement in community corrections for the remaining term was appropriate (revocation available if terms violated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2007) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review may address where sentence is served)
- Hole v. State, 851 N.E.2d 302 (Ind. 2006) (place of confinement is proper subject of appellate sentencing review)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) role is to ‘leaven the outliers’ in sentencing)
- Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157 (Ind. 2017) (7(B) authority reserved for exceptional cases)
- Eckelbarger v. State, 51 N.E.3d 169 (Ind. 2016) (appellate courts may independently review and revise sentences even absent trial court abuse of discretion)