Richard C. Gross v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 632
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Gross and Moore planned a market robbery; Moore shot two proprietors, Bhatti and Singh, killing both, then they hid the gun and fled.
- On Dec. 9, 2013 Gross pled guilty to two murder counts after being advised of rights and possible consecutive sentences up to 130 years.
- On Dec. 19, 2013 Gross, pro se, moved to withdraw his plea alleging mental health issues and lack of understanding.
- A March 13, 2014 hearing denied Gross’s motion to withdraw guilty pleas after review of the proceedings and arguments.
- At sentencing (May 29, 2014), court found mitigating factors (age 23, responsibility, mental health) and aggravating factors (two victims, violence, history, substances).
- Court imposed two 50-year sentences, consecutive to each other, for a total aggregate of 100 years, with treatment recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal of guilty pleas? | Gross argues he misunderstood consequences due to mental health and counsel's guidance. | Record shows pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made; withdrawal would prejudice the State. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in sentencing the offenses? | Mitigating factors outweighed aggravators; consecutive sentences were improper given mitigated underlying sentences. | Aggravators supported consecutive sentences; court properly weighed factors and imposed reasonable consequences. | No abuse; consecutive, mitigated sentences upheld. |
| Is Gross’s aggregate 100-year sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B) based on nature and character? | Aggregate sentence incompatible with the offense’s nature and offender’s character; excessive given mitigation. | Offense involved violence and foreseeability; offender’s history supports severity; remorse shown. | Not inappropriate; aggregate sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. 1995) (presumption of validity for denial of guilty-plea withdrawal; abuse only on clear error)
- Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. 2001) (guidance on manifest injustice and withdrawal standards)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirements for sentencing statements and consideration of aggravators/mitigators)
- Frentz v. State, 875 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (multicount sentencing; forest vs. trees approach; consecutive vs. concurrent authority)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (multiple victims informs consecutive-sentencing analysis)
- Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. 2002) (presumption and standard for trial-court decision on plea withdrawal)
- Jeffries v. State, 966 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (manifest injustice and withdrawal of guilty plea considerations)