Ronald Tolliver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
63A05-1610-CR-2321
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- In March–April 2016, 68-year-old Ronald L. Tolliver engaged in an online chatroom posing sexual content to a screen name "Maddie" who identified as a 13-year-old; "Maddie" was an undercover police officer.
- Tolliver urged sexual activity, instructed the purported child how to masturbate, sent a masturbatory video, and attempted to arrange videochat and photos.
- The State charged Tolliver with Level 5 felony child solicitation; he pleaded guilty.
- At sentencing the court identified the defendant’s IRAS risk-to-reoffend score as an aggravator and noted mitigation: guilty plea, no prior criminal history, military service, health problems.
- The trial court imposed the advisory three-year term (within statutory 1–6 year range) and required sex-offender registration; Tolliver appealed alleging failure to consider mitigating factors and that the sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors | State: court considered mitigation and weighed factors appropriately | Tolliver: court omitted or underweighted mitigation (health, military service, no priors) and improperly used IRAS as aggravator | No abuse requiring remand; even if error occurred, no remand because sentence not inappropriate |
| Whether three-year advisory sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | State: advisory sentence is presumptively appropriate and reflects offense seriousness | Tolliver: sentence excessive given lack of real child victim, age, health, military service, no prior convictions | Affirmed; defendant failed to meet heavy burden to show advisory term inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing abuses of discretion)
- Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (remand unnecessary if sentence not inappropriate despite sentencing error)
- Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (same principle)
- Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (appellate review of sentencing)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (remand principles following sentencing error)
- Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (sentencing review standards)
- Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Rule 7(B) authority and deference to trial court)
- Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate role to identify outliers under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate sentencing review principles)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant’s burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (greater burden to challenge advisory sentence)