987 N.E.2d 170
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Westlake pleaded guilty to class A felony child molesting (FA-1) and class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor (FB-4) under a plea agreement, with four other charges dismissed; sentencing was left to the trial court.
- The trial court found one aggravating factor (criminal and juvenile record) and one mitigating factor (mental health issues); they were given equal weight and concurrent advisory sentences were imposed.
- Westlake admitted to sexual intercourse with two victims: C.E., fourteen, and B.B., thirteen; charges arose from incidents in early 2012 in Shelbyville.
- A written Advisement of Rights and Waiver accompanied the plea agreement, purporting to waive appellate review; the court also advised Westlake about appeal rights at the plea hearing.
- The court ultimately affirmed the sentence after concluding the waiver governed 7(B) challenges but not abuse-of-discretion claims, and it found the plea benefited Westlake given dismissed charges and the strength of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of appellate review</br>under App. Rule 7(B) | Westlake waived 7(B) rights | Waiver forecloses 7(B) review | Waiver valid for 7(B) challenges; abuse claims preserved |
| Whether the guilty plea was improperly treated as a mitigating factor | Guilty plea significant mitigation given plea benefit | Plea not automatically significant mitigation | No abuse of discretion; substantial plea benefit and strength of evidence support court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (waivers of appellate review must be knowing and voluntary)
- Ricci v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (plea advisement can affect waiver analysis; sometimes not a waiver of all appellate rights)
- Valenzuela v. State, 898 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (ambiguous plea agreement construed against State)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse of discretion and 7(B) issues analyzed separately)
- Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (guilty plea not automatically significant mitigation)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (review standard for sentencing discretion)