Matthew Duke Coonce v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
29A02-1609-CR-2054
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- On July 27, 2015, Matthew Coonce attacked Austin Ellis and Brian Cowell at Cowell’s parents’ home; Ellis was beaten and zip-tied, and Cowell was repeatedly struck, rendered unconscious, and suffered lacerations and a seizure.
- Police found stolen/damaged property (including Cowell’s Chevrolet Equinox) and zip ties; Coonce was later located, arrested, and admitted beating Cowell while denying theft.
- Coonce was convicted by jury of Level 5 felony battery (serious bodily injury), Class A misdemeanor battery, Level 6 criminal confinement (lesser-included), and Level 6 auto theft.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences with a six-year term for the Level 5 felony battery (the maximum in the 1–6 year statutory range), to run consecutive to a Marion County sentence.
- Coonce appealed only the six-year sentence for the Level 5 battery, arguing the sentence was inappropriate given victim provocation and that unconsciousness could not be used as an aggravator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coonce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six-year (maximum) sentence for Level 5 battery is inappropriate | Sentence is supported by nature of offense and Coonce’s extensive criminal history and conduct | Maximum is excessive given advisory sentence was 3 years and Coonce is not the worst Level 5 offender | Affirmed — six-year sentence not inappropriate |
| Whether victim’s provocation/instigation mitigates sentence | Victim’s intervention did not excuse or meaningfully mitigate Coonce’s violent conduct | Cowell instigated by joining fight twice; sentencing should consider victim-induced or provoked conduct as mitigating | Rejected — provocation/guest status of victim insufficient to warrant reduction |
| Whether unconsciousness may be used as an aggravator | Court did not rely on unconsciousness as an aggravator here; statutory definition treats unconsciousness as serious bodily injury | Argues unconsciousness was the element elevating the offense and thus cannot also be an aggravator | Not reached as aggravator — sentencing court did not cite unconsciousness; issue immaterial to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for appellate review of sentencing discretion)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate; Rule 7(B) review explained)
- Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court’s sentencing decisions)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (criminal history relevant to character in sentencing)
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (advisory sentence as starting point under Anglemyer principles)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing statement and permissible aggravators/mitigators framework)
- Keller v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussion of culpability, severity, and damage in sentencing analysis)