Reginald Anthony Tate v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A04-1705-CR-998
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Tate, a long-term boyfriend of N.D., was entrusted with care of her younger sister S.C., then age 12; on August 11, 2016, Tate sexually assaulted S.C., including digital and penile penetration. DNA from Tate was found on multiple swabs.
- State charged Tate with Level 1 and Level 4 child molesting (Cause No. F1-6) and later with multiple charges relating to prior incidents (Cause No. F4-33).
- Tate pled guilty to Level 1 felony child molesting in a plea agreement that capped his sentence at the thirty-year advisory term; other counts were dismissed.
- At sentencing, over Tate’s objection the State introduced police reports and a written statement from an alleged prior victim (C.D.W.) describing earlier sexual abuse by Tate; no charges had been filed on those prior allegations.
- The trial court sentenced Tate to the thirty-year advisory sentence, explicitly stating it gave "no weight whatsoever" to the C.D.W. allegations. Tate appealed challenging admission of the prior-allegation evidence, the court’s aggravating/mitigating findings, and sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of uncharged allegations at sentencing | State: such evidence is permissible at sentencing for individualized punishment assessment | Tate: the C.D.W. material was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Admission was within trial court discretion; even if error, harmless because court stated it gave the material no weight |
| Consideration of criminal history as aggravator | State: criminal history is a proper statutory aggravator | Tate: court over-weighted his record | Criminal history is a valid aggravating factor; weight assigned is not reviewable for abuse of discretion |
| Failure to find remorse as mitigating factor | Tate: his remorse deserved significant mitigating weight | State: credibility and weight for remorse are sentencing determinations for the trial court | Court did not abuse discretion; trial court may reject claimed remorse as insincere |
| Appropriateness of 30-year advisory sentence under App. R. 7(B) | Tate: thirty years is inappropriate given circumstances and plea cap | State: offense gravity and defendant’s character support advisory term | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate given breach of trust, repeated abuse, victim trauma, and violent criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. State, 562 N.E.2d 43 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (rules of evidence relaxed at sentencing to allow fuller information about defendant)
- Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 1999) (uncharged crimes may be considered at sentencing)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing decisions and abuses thereof)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate authority to review and revise sentences under App. R. 7(B))
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court in sentencing review; reversal requires compelling positive evidence)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (factors relevant to App. R. 7(B) inappropriate-sentence review)