Shannon D. Moyer v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 390
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In late 2015–early 2016 Shannon D. Moyer acquired a shotgun via a straw purchaser, possessed it while hunting (Cause 7), and later hid it from DNR officers; he also, while high on amphetamines and marijuana, drove with and neglected two minor children, crashed, and was found unconscious (Cause 225), plus an unrelated Cause 288 was dismissed under plea deal.
- Moyer pled guilty pursuant to a single plea agreement covering three causes: pleaded to level 4 unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF) with a habitual-offender admission, and two level 6 felonies (neglect of a dependent and OWI with a minor); other charges were dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced him to concurrent 1- and 2-year terms for the level 6 felonies (Cause 225) and to a 10-year term plus an 8-year habitual enhancement (14 executed, 2 community corrections, 2 suspended) for the SVF (Cause 7), ordered consecutively for an aggregate 20-year sentence.
- Moyer appealed, challenging the Cause 7 portion of his sentence (aggravating/mitigating factor treatment, appropriateness), and asserted an error in jail-time credit for Cause 225. The appeals were consolidated.
- The State concedes, and the court finds, the presentence jail-credit calculation omitted two days; otherwise the court affirms the aggregate 20-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moyer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of appellate review — whether review may be limited to a single cause/sentence | The plea agreement was a single transaction covering multiple causes; appellate review should consider the aggregate sentence | Moyer sought review only of the Cause 7 portion (SVF + habitual enhancement) | Court: review must consider aggregate sentence because the single plea agreement encompassed all causes (cites Webb/Cardwell) — affirmed aggregate review |
| Use of risk-assessment as an aggravator | Court may consider risk scores as supplemental information | Moyer: trial court improperly used probation risk-assessment score as an aggravator | Court: oral mention was supplemental; written orders listed proper aggravators (criminal history, repeat offenses, probation violations, pretrial violation, seriousness, minimization); even if improper, other valid aggravators suffice — no abuse of discretion |
| Weight given to mitigating factors | N/A (State argued sentence was appropriate) | Moyer: trial court undervalued guilty plea, employment, family ties | Court: relative weight is not reviewable on appeal; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Appropriateness of aggregate 20-year sentence under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | N/A (State defends sentence as appropriate given offenses/character) | Moyer: sentence inappropriate given limited scope/duration of firearm possession and substance-related background | Court: affirmed — offenses (deceptive straw purchase, concealment), lengthy criminal history, repeated probation failures, danger to children justify sentence; habitual enhancement not excessive |
| Jail-time credit calculation | Concedes error: PSI used wrong sentencing date leading to undercredit | Moyer: entitled to two additional days' credit | Held: remand to correct jail-time credit (add 2 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (a defendant may not limit appellate review to a single sentence when a single plea agreement covers multiple causes)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review should focus on aggregate sentence and context of plea bargaining)
- J.S. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. 2010) (recidivism risk-assessment scores do not count as aggravators but may be supplemental consideration)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when remand is required for improper reasons)
- Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (appellate rule 7(B) framework: court may revise sentence only if sentence is inappropriate in light of nature of offense and character of offender)