Michael L. Zackmire v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 23A01-1701-CR-202

Defendant Michael L. Zackmire pled guilty to two counts of Level 3 felony rape arising from sexual intercourse and other sexual contact with J.S., a mentally disabled 24‑year‑old over whom he was a court‑appointed co‑guardian. Two other rape charges were dismissed under the plea agreement.
Offenses occurred between August 1 and September 8, 2015; probation investigation noted multiple incidents over several weeks and facts that J.S. had the mental age of a twelve‑year‑old.
Zackmire had no prior criminal history, expressed remorse, cooperated with authorities, and accepted responsibility by pleading guilty. He attributed his conduct to stress and alcohol.
Trial court identified several aggravators (position of trust/guardian, care/custody/control while co‑guardian at work, repeated pattern, physical and emotional harm to a disabled victim, victim was a virgin) and mitigators (remorse, lack of prior history, hardship, low likelihood of reoccurrence).
The court imposed the advisory sentence of nine years on each count and ordered them to run consecutively for an aggregate executed term of eighteen years. Zackmire appealed, challenging (1) abuse of sentencing discretion and (2) sentence appropriateness under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by treating position of trust and position of care/custody/control as separate aggravators	State: both facts are distinct aspects of exploitation and support separate consideration	Zackmire: the two aggravators are duplicative and should count as one	No abuse; court reasonably treated them as distinct factual aggravators
Whether trial court abused discretion by relying on facts (victim was a virgin) not supported by the record	State: PSI included probable cause affidavit noting victim’s virginity; admissible and unobjected to	Zackmire: that finding is not fully supported by the record	No abuse; evidence in PSI supported the finding and defendant did not object
Whether consecutive advisory sentences (9+9 = 18 yrs) were inappropriate given nature of offense and character	State: repeated rapes of a disabled ward, position of trust, physical/emotional harm justify consecutive sentences	Zackmire: lack of criminal history, remorse, low reoffense risk, employment, counseling, and plea mitigation make 18 years inappropriate	No; after due consideration, appellate court affirms 18 years as not inappropriate under Rule 7(B)

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing statements and abuse of discretion)
K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006) (definitions used in abuse‑of‑discretion review)
Alvies v. State, 905 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate review under Rule 7(B))
Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court sentencing decisions)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on appellant to show sentence inappropriate)
McKinney v. State, 873 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting difficulty of overturning advisory sentence on appeal)