MJoseph Basford v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
46A03-1609-CR-2167
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- On Nov. 8, 2012, Basford (age 18) participated in a planned robbery at 301 Porter Street; the victim, Gerald (Jerry) Peters, was beaten and died. Basford admitted he came with a baseball bat and joined others in the basement attack.
- Basford was originally charged with murder, felony murder, and class A robbery.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement (Aug. 22, 2013), Basford pleaded guilty to class A robbery; murder and felony-murder counts and unrelated charges were dismissed in exchange for his cooperation and testimony against co-defendants.
- At sentencing (Aug. 17, 2016) the court heard testimony and reviewed a PSI; Basford argued mitigating factors including youth, cooperation, guilty plea, a three-year-old daughter, drug addiction, and difficult upbringing.
- The trial court identified multiple aggravators (need for rehabilitation, significant history of violent crimes/high risk of reoffense, disproportionate use of force, victim over 65, brutality and callousness, and that reducing the sentence would depreciate seriousness) and limited the weight of mitigators, noting substantial benefit received from the plea.
- The court imposed a 50-year executed sentence for class A robbery. Basford appealed, contesting the court’s weighing of mitigating factors and arguing abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Basford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in sentencing | Trial court acted within discretion; weighing of aggravators/mitigators is not subject to appellate reweighing; no special circumstances shown for daughter hardship | Court gave minimal weight to mitigators (age, guilty plea, cooperation, hardship to daughter, remorse); argues these warranted greater weight | No abuse of discretion; court properly identified factors and permissibly assigned weight; 50-year sentence affirmed |
| Whether hardship to Basford’s daughter is a mitigating factor | Hardship not shown as "special circumstance"; daughter born after arrest; no proof Basford supported her | Imprisonment causes undue hardship on three-year-old dependent; should mitigate sentence | Not a mitigating factor here—no special circumstances proved; court need not find hardship absent such showing |
| Whether remorse and cooperation warranted significant mitigation | Cooperation and plea were considered but weight is discretionary; remorse not raised at sentencing so waived | Remorse and testimony against co-defendants should receive significant weight | Court did not abuse discretion; remorse not raised at sentencing (waived) and credibility determinations reserved for trial court |
| Whether appellate revision under Ind. App. R. 7(B) was preserved | State: Basford failed to argue inappropriateness under 7(B), so waived | Basford cited Rule 7(B) generally but did not present substantive 7(B) argument | 7(B) argument waived for inadequate briefing; court declines to revise sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when remand is required)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on Anglemyer rehearing)
- Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court’s discretion to identify and weight mitigators)
- Pickens v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 2002) (court’s assessment of remorse is a credibility determination)
- Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court best positioned to judge sincerity of remorse)
- Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1999) (absent special circumstances, imprisonment’s hardship on others is not a required mitigator)
- Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (recognizing incarceration almost always burdens others; special circumstances required)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (single aggravator can support an enhanced sentence)
- Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (failure to present cogent 7(B) argument waives appellate review)
- Gentry v. State, 835 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (conclusory sentence-reduction assertions waive appellate review)