Steven D. Martin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
46A03-1706-CR-1262
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- On January 11, 2015, Steven D. Martin stole two 48-inch Sony televisions from Walmart; police found crack cocaine and a crack pipe when they stopped his car.
- The State charged Martin with Level 6 felony theft, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
- Martin pled guilty to Level 6 felony theft in exchange for dismissal of the other charges; sentencing was left to the trial court.
- At sentencing the court found multiple aggravators (extensive criminal history, probation/bond violations, pending charges) and one mitigator (guilty plea), and imposed a two-year sentence.
- After Martin moved to correct error, the court struck one aggravator (walking away from treatment) and reduced the sentence to 23 months.
- On appeal Martin argued the court abused its discretion by failing to find two additional mitigators: (1) hardship to his children from loss of support, and (2) his history of substance abuse and pretrial treatment efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find hardship to Martin's children as a mitigator | Martin: his children will be deprived of his support and this should mitigate sentence | State: Martin did not raise this mitigator at sentencing; record does not clearly support the claimed hardship | Court: No abuse — mitigator was not argued at sentencing and record did not clearly support it (waived) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find Martin's substance-abuse history and pretrial treatment efforts as a mitigator | Martin: his substance-abuse history and voluntary pretrial treatment support mitigation | State: Martin has a long history of substance-related convictions and missed prior treatment opportunities | Court: No abuse — evidence did not clearly support mitigation given long history and prior failures to take advantage of treatment |
| Whether the court gave insufficient weight to the guilty plea mitigator | Martin: the guilty plea was given too little weight | State: weight assigned to mitigators is not subject to appellate review | Court: Not reviewable — appellate courts do not reassess the weight given to aggravators/mitigators |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate and should be reduced on appeal | Martin: asked court to reduce sentence based on mitigators | State: Martin provided no developed argument on offense or character under App. R. 7(B) | Court: Waived/inadequately briefed; appellate revision of sentence not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (clarifies standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing and consideration of mitigators)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarifies that appellate review does not include reweighing aggravators and mitigators)
- Harman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (defendant must show mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported by the record)
- Rose v. State, 810 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (no abuse in refusing addiction mitigator where defendant failed to use prior opportunities for treatment)