Raul Ramirez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 19A-CR-1640

On May 18, 2018, Raul Ramirez crashed his vehicle into one driven by Jeremiah Murphy, killing Murphy and seriously injuring passengers Kayla Faubion and four‑year‑old S.M.; Ramirez’s blood alcohol concentration about two hours after the crash was .205 ACE.
Ramirez was charged with multiple counts; pursuant to a plea agreement he pleaded guilty to Count I (operating with ACE ≥ .15 causing death, Level 4) and Counts III–IV (operating with ACE ≥ .08 causing serious bodily injury, Level 6); other counts were dismissed and sentencing was left to the court.
While on pretrial release Ramirez tested positive for alcohol in violation of court conditions and his bond was revoked.
The trial court found aggravators: harm to victims greater than offense elements (S.M. nearly blind in one eye; Faubion multiple fractures), a victim under 12 (S.M., age 4), violation of pretrial release, and an extensive criminal history (≈26 adjudications/convictions, including seven OWIs). Mitigators included remorse, family support, and acceptance of responsibility via guilty plea.
The court imposed maximum sentences: 12 years on Count I and 2.5 years each on Counts III and IV, to run consecutively for an aggregate 17 years in the DOC.
Ramirez appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by using Murphy’s death (an element of Count I) as an aggravating factor; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by using a material element of the offense (the victim’s death) as an aggravating factor	The court did not improperly rely on the death; the oral comment acknowledged death was an element and the written order did not list it; independent, supported aggravators justified the sentence	The court improperly considered Murphy’s death (an element of Count I) as an aggravator, warranting resentencing	No abuse of discretion; the written statement omitted death as an aggravator, the court emphasized Ramirez’s extensive criminal history and other valid aggravators, and the same sentence would have been imposed without any improper consideration. Sentence affirmed.

McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. 2016) (explains sentencing review standard and abuse‑of‑discretion framework)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sets requirements for sentencing statements and when remand is required for improper aggravators)
Lewis v. State, 31 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (a single valid aggravating circumstance can support an enhanced sentence)