Robert Shelton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1703-CR-581
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- On July 22, 2016, Robert Shelton, recently released on parole for a 1997 rape conviction, grabbed Emily Longnecker’s purse in a downtown Indianapolis parking lot; when she resisted he punched her four to five times in the face and head, causing bruising and a day-long headache.
- Shelton was charged with Level 3 felony attempted robbery; the charge was elevated because the attempt resulted in bodily injury.
- The State alleged Shelton was a habitual offender based on prior robbery convictions; Shelton admitted habitual-offender status.
- A jury convicted Shelton of attempted robbery; at sentencing the trial court found multiple aggravators (including extensive criminal history and commission while on parole) and several mitigators (upbringing, drug addiction, apology), and concluded aggravators outweighed mitigators.
- The court imposed 14 years for attempted robbery plus a 16-year habitual-offender enhancement, for an aggregate executed sentence of 30 years.
- On appeal Shelton argued his sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B); he asked the court to reduce the sentence in light of the offense and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shelton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shelton’s 30-year executed sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given bodily injury, public nature of attack, victim impact, Shelton’s lengthy and violent criminal history, and commission while on parole | Sentence is excessive; Shelton argues his conduct was minimal beyond attempt and urged consideration of mitigators (upbringing, addiction, apology) | Affirmed: appellate court finds sentence not inappropriate; aggravators (serious criminal history, commission on parole, injury and public nature of offense) outweigh mitigators |
Key Cases Cited
- Neville v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (recognizes appellate independent review of sentences under Article 7, §6)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing decision under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 7(B) review should address outliers and focus on aggregate sentence)
- Prater v. State, 59 N.E.3d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review may consider all penal consequences imposed)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Erickson v. State, 72 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (criminal history significance varies with gravity and relation to current offense)