Pierre Burdette v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A04-1702-CR-384
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- On Sept. 10, 2016, Pierre D. Burdette went to his ex-girlfriend’s mother’s home despite an active no-contact order; the ex-girlfriend called 9-1-1.
- Burdette snatched her phone, threw it so it shattered, scratched her behind the ear, and pushed her away while their young children witnessed the incident. He fled before police arrived.
- State charged four counts including a Level 6 felony domestic battery; Burdette pled guilty to three misdemeanors (interference with reporting, invasion of privacy, criminal mischief) and the felony was dismissed.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed maximum concurrent terms (one year, one year, 180 days) and ordered the aggregate one-year term executed in DOC. The court cited violation of the no-contact order and that Burdette was on probation as aggravators; guilty plea was noted as mitigation.
- Burdette appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly used the facts/circumstances as an aggravator and (2) his executed one-year placement is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering the facts/circumstances of the offense as an aggravator | State: Trial court permissibly considered the defendant’s violation of a no-contact order and probation status as aggravating. | Burdette: Court improperly relied on the facts of the offense as an aggravating factor without showing something beyond the offense elements or providing required detail. | No abuse. For misdemeanors the court need not articulate or balance aggravators/mitigators or give a detailed sentencing statement. |
| Whether the executed one-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: Executed sentence appropriate given defendant’s criminal history, probation violations, failure of lenient alternatives, and refusal to participate in presentence screening for alternatives. | Burdette: Sentence excessive; motive (to see children), background, work history, and family hardship justify suspension or home detention. | Sentence not inappropriate. Defendant’s criminal history and the children’s exposure to violence support execution; defendant failed to show placement was inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion and sentencing statements)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirements for sentencing statements; clarified on reh’g)
- Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (misdemeanor statutes set maximums; trial court not required to issue detailed sentencing statement for misdemeanors)
- Parks v. State, 22 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. 2014) (Appellate Rule 7(B) standard and factors for revising sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) purpose and deference to trial court)
- Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant challenging placement must show given placement is inappropriate and trial court knows feasibility of alternatives)