Nathan K. Barker v. State of Indiana
994 N.E.2d 306
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Nathan Barker pled guilty to class A felony neglect of a dependent causing death, with remaining counts dismissed and a cap of forty years on the executed portion of his sentence.
- The trial court sentenced Barker to 45 years, with 40 years executed and the balance suspended to probation, plus 120 days of home detention as part of probation.
- The victim, a 22-month-old, suffered extensive injuries including multiple brain injuries and abdominal injuries, with death ruled a homicide due to force trauma.
- The trial court found aggravating factors (severe injuries, care/custody violation, and failure to seek medical help) and one mitigating factor (family history of Huntington’s disease).
- Barker challenged the sentence as an abuse of discretion and as exceeding the forty-year cap due to the home detention credit time.
- The appellate court remanded for a new sentencing order limited to not exceeding the forty-year cap; otherwise the sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion in aggravating/mitigating factors? | Barker argues the court ignored the guilty plea/remorse and misweighed mitigators. | Court properly weighed Huntington’s disease history as a mitigator and considered remorse based on demeanor and letters. | No abuse; factors weighed within discretion. |
| Does 120 days of home detention count as executed time, exceeding the forty-year cap? | Home detention time should count toward executed time, thus exceeding the cap when added to 40 years. | Credit for time served on home detention is not unequivocally required; the extent of credit is within statutory interpretation. | Remand for a sentencing order that complies with the forty-year cap. |
| Is Barker's sentence inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)? | The nature of the offense and Barker's character warrant revision to a more appropriate sentence. | The sentence reflects the gravity of the offense and Barker’s prior conduct; the court should not alter it. | Sentence affirmed aside from remand for cap-compliant order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (abuselike discretion standard for sentencing)
- Pedraza v. State, 887 N.E.2d 77 (Ind. 2008) (statutory aggravation of a material element permissible)
- Capes v. State, 634 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. 1994) (pretrial home detention credit time issue prior to Franklin)
- Franklin v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1062 (Ind. 1997) (pretrial home detention credit not available after statute amendment)
- Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 1999) (time actually served on home detention credited; overruled Franklin on certain points)
- Lewis v. State, 898 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (pretrial vs post-sentencing home detainees; credit time discussion)
- Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (remorse as a mitigating factor not automatic)