Mark Bailey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
33A05-1705-CR-1174
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- On Aug. 5, 2016, Bailey fled from a deputy during a traffic stop, engaged in a high-speed chase, and crashed; the vehicle was stolen and Bailey drove on a suspended license.
- The State charged multiple counts including level 6 felony auto theft, level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, other misdemeanors/infractions, and later added a habitual offender enhancement.
- On the morning of trial the State dismissed the auto-theft count and Bailey pled guilty to resisting law enforcement (level 6), driving while suspended (class A misdemeanor), and the habitual offender count; remaining counts were dismissed.
- At sentencing the court found aggravators (lengthy criminal history, repeated probation/parole violations) and declined to treat Bailey’s last-minute guilty plea as a mitigator because the plea occurred with the jury waiting outside.
- The court imposed an aggregate six-year sentence: two years for the level 6 felony (one executed, one suspended to probation), a four-year executed term for the habitual offender enhancement, and a one-year license suspension for the misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not recognizing Bailey’s guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance | Bailey: plea should be considered mitigating | State: court may decline to find plea mitigating, especially when entered last minute | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered but permissibly rejected plea as mitigator |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Bailey: aggregate six-year sentence is inappropriate given offense/character | State: sentence is within statutory range and justified by offense and lengthy criminal history | Court: Bailey failed to show sentence is inappropriate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing and treatment of mitigators)
- Healey v. State, 969 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court not obligated to accept defendant’s characterization of a mitigator)
- Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (appellate authority to revise sentence under Rule 7(B))
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of all penal consequences on appellate sentence review)