Lori L. Cinelli v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
32A05-1702-CR-269
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- In late 2015–early 2016, Lori Cinelli sold methamphetamine on three occasions in the presence of a one-year-old and a three-year-old; the total amount exceeded 14 grams.
- She was charged with multiple counts including one Level 2 and two Level 3 felonies for dealing in methamphetamine; other possession counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
- Cinelli pleaded guilty to one Level 2 and two Level 3 dealing counts; plea limited each count to a maximum of 10 years served concurrently at the DOC, and the trial court would determine actual placement.
- At sentencing the State sought a fully executed sentence; Cinelli requested placement in community corrections/home detention to care for family, work part-time, and receive treatment.
- The trial court identified aggravators (criminal history, knowledge buyer was addicted) and mitigators (mental health, substance abuse, difficult childhood); sentenced Cinelli to 10 years with 8 years executed at the Indiana DOC and remainder suspended to home detention.
- Cinelli appealed under Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing that the eight-year DOC placement was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement of 8 years at DOC is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | State: placement appropriate; full execution justified by aggravators | Cinelli: DOC placement inappropriate given mitigating factors, need for treatment, family care, and minimal culpability relative to possible ranges | Court: placement not inappropriate; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (appellate review may consider suspended portions and other sentencing tools)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2007) (placement of sentence is proper subject of appellate revision)
- Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (difficult for defendant to prevail on placement claims; must show placement itself inappropriate)
- Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. 2014) (advisory sentence is legislature's starting point)
- Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (nature-of-offense comparison to statutory elements for Rule 7(B) review)