Scott Grundy v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 495
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On December 28, 2013 Scott Grundy drove into a workplace parking area, approached coworker Fu Chia Tsai, punched him once and kicked him in the face; Tsai suffered multiple facial fractures, permanent numbness and scarring, vision changes, and required reconstructive surgery with permanent implants.
- Smith (the victim’s coworker and Grundy’s ex) identified Grundy at the scene and reported the assault; Tsai was treated and released then later underwent surgery.
- The State charged Grundy with battery (Class C) and amended to add aggravated battery (Class B); a bench trial in August 2014 resulted in conviction for aggravated battery.
- The State also filed a habitual-offender enhancement; Grundy stipulated to prior convictions and was adjudicated a habitual offender at sentencing.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the advisory 10-year term for a Class B felony, enhanced by 10 years under the pre–July 1, 2014 habitual-offender statute, with two years suspended (aggregate 20 years).
- Grundy appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of “protracted loss or impairment” to support aggravated battery, (2) his sentence is inappropriate, and (3) the amended (post–July 1, 2014) habitual-offender statute should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grundy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence supports aggravated battery (protracted loss/impairment) | Evidence (victim and surgeon) shows long-lasting and partly permanent impairment (numbness, scarring, vision changes, chronic headaches) sufficient for aggravated battery | Victim’s function was largely restored after surgery; injuries not protracted impairment | Conviction affirmed — sufficient evidence of protracted impairment |
| Sentence appropriateness under Rule 7(B) | Sentence supported by severity, permanent harm, defendant’s violent history, and witness-influence attempts | Sentence excessive for a single punch/kick and claimed functional recovery | Sentence not inappropriate — trial court’s judgment affirmed |
| Habitual-offender statute: which version applies | Sentencing law that was in effect when offense occurred (pre–July 1, 2014) governs enhancements; savings clause preserves prior penalties | Habitual-offender status was adjudicated after July 1, 2014 so new, lower enhancement should apply | Pre–July 1, 2014 habitual-offender statute applies; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2000) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (review focuses on evidence favorable to verdict)
- Mann v. State, 895 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (definition and proof of protracted impairment)
- Fleming v. State, 833 N.E.2d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (sufficient evidence of aggravated battery where impairments were long-lasting)
- Neville v. State, 802 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (insufficient proof of protracted impairment where severity/duration not shown)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate role in reviewing sentence appropriateness)
- Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (sentencing governed by law in effect when offense committed)
- Baurer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (habitual-offender finding is sentence enhancement attached to the underlying crime)