Paula S. Black v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
35A02-1705-CR-1173
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Paula Black sold methylphenidate (Ritalin) to a confidential informant on Dec 21, 2015 and Jan 18, 2016; both transactions were videotaped.
- During the January transaction, a six‑year‑old child who lived with Black walked through the room. The child’s mother was incarcerated for selling drugs out of Black’s home; the father is a registered sex offender.
- State charged Black with Level 3 felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance (dealing in presence of a child) and Level 4 felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance.
- Black rejected a fixed‑sentence plea offer, pled guilty without an agreement, and asked the court to determine sentence. While on pretrial house arrest she was alleged to have violated terms.
- Trial court sentenced Black to 14 years with 5 years suspended on the Level 3 count and 8 years on the Level 4 count, to run concurrently (aggregate 14 years). Black appealed.
- Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse discretion in sentencing but found the aggregate sentence inappropriate and revised it to an aggregate advisory sentence of 9 years with 4 years suspended to probation; case reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by failing to find mitigators | State: trial court properly evaluated sentencing factors | Black: court failed to find remorse, guilty plea, and undue hardship to dependent as mitigators | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly discredited remorse, found plea pragmatic given videotape, and did not accept hardship as significant |
| Whether sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: original sentence appropriate given conduct (sales, child present, pretrial violation) | Black: 14‑year aggregate sentence is excessive given minimal criminal history, health issues, and caregiving role | Court exercised Rule 7(B) authority and reduced aggregate sentence to advisory 9 years with 4 years suspended to probation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing statements and abuse of discretion)
- Pickens v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 2002) (remorse determination akin to credibility assessment)
- Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2000) (trial court not required to accept defendant’s characterization of mitigating circumstances)
- Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (guilty plea may not be mitigating when plea is pragmatic or benefits are substantial)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Rule 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (appellate options when trial court abuses sentencing discretion)
- Beno v. State, 581 N.E.2d 922 (Ind. 1991) (concurrent sentences required for virtually identical drug offenses in close temporal proximity)