Michael Neil Gann v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
82A04-1608-CR-1999
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- On March 14, 2015, Michael Gann drank heavily at two gatherings (including rapid consumption of multiple shots) despite prior counseling for an alcohol-related driving charge.
- After hitting a parked vehicle at a gas station, Gann left the scene, continued driving, crossed a median, and struck a car head-on while traveling in the wrong direction.
- Gann’s hospital BAC/ACE readings were very high (.27 to .391). One passenger (Logan Brown) was killed; two others (Hannah Miller and Kurt Osborne) suffered severe, protracted injuries.
- Gann pleaded guilty to: Level 4 felony (causing death with ACE ≥ .15), two Level 6 felonies (causing serious bodily injury with ACE ≥ .08), and a Class B misdemeanor (leaving the scene).
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences: 10 years (Level 4), 2 years each (two Level 6s), and 180 days (misdemeanor), totaling 14.5 years executed.
- Gann appealed, challenging (1) use of certain aggravators and the imposition of enhanced/consecutive sentences, and (2) the overall appropriateness of the sentence under App. R. 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering aggravators (drinking, BAC/ACE, injury severity) and imposing enhanced sentences | Aggravators were supported by facts beyond statutory elements (ACE far above statutory minimum; severity and multiplicity of injuries); appropriate to consider in sentencing | Court impermissibly relied on elements of the offense (drinking, BAC, injuries) as aggravators and failed to articulate reasons for enhancement | Court affirmed: aggravators were supported by facts going beyond statutory minima (e.g., ACE much higher; particularized injury severity) and were properly considered |
| Whether consecutive sentences were permissible given the sentencing statement's specificity | Consecutive sentences are supported by record (multiple victims; convictions are violent crimes); articulated sufficiently on record | Trial court failed to adequately explain and evaluate aggravators to justify consecutive sentences | Court affirmed: although the written statement lacked detail, the rationale (multiple victims; violent-crime classification) is apparent in the record and supports consecutives |
| Whether the aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given nature of offense and offender’s character (repeat issues with alcohol, left scene, high impairment, severe harm) | Sentence is excessive/inappropriate given circumstances | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate in light of offense seriousness and offender’s character (high intoxication, prior counseling, resulting death and severe injuries) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sentencing discretion and requirement for sentencing statement)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (limitations when using elements of the offense as aggravators and necessity to go beyond statutory elements)
- Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishing elements from nature/circumstances as aggravators)
- Patterson v. State, 846 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (seriousness of injury may be a valid aggravator even when injury is an element)
- Lang v. State, 461 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 1984) (permitting injury severity as aggravator)
- Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008) (consecutive sentences allowed when supported by aggravators; need for articulation)
- Lewis v. State, 31 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (consecutive sentences may be upheld where rationale is apparent on the record)
- Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (scope of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (components of sentence for Rule 7(B) consideration)
- Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for appellate revision under Rule 7(B))
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant’s burden in arguing inappropriateness)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for assessing sentence appropriateness)