947 N.E.2d 1033
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Stokes was convicted in 2009 of robbery, attempted robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (UPFSVF), and criminal recklessness (Class C).
- In 2010 this Court vacated five attempted-robbery convictions and remanded for resentencing on remaining counts.
- On resentencing, the trial court imposed concurrent 20-year robbery and 10-year attempted-robbery terms, plus 20-year UPFSVF and 4-year recklessness, for an aggregate of 44 years.
- The court relied on Stokes’s extensive criminal history as the sole aggravating factor.
- Stokes’s challenge centers on whether the court abused its discretion and whether the sentence is inappropriate, with the State defending the sentence as proper.
- Stokes’s 2001 dealing-in-cocaine conviction was used as part of his history and as basis for UPFSVF, and the rifle involved affected multiple enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Stokes. | Stokes argues double enhancement from same prior conviction. | Enhancements are authorized by statute and history considered as a whole. | No abuse; explicit legislative authorization supporting enhancements. |
| Whether the consecutive UPFSVF sentence is inappropriate. | Sentence is inappropriate given nature and character. | Consecutive UPFSVF sentence warranted by extensive criminal history. | Not inappropriate; affirm the consecutive UPFSVF sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing)
- Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81 (Ind.2008) (double enhancement context for prior felonies)
- Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind.2010) (legislative direction on enhancements; double-counting issues)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (double jeopardy considerations in multiple offenses)
- Mickens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 927 (Ind.2001) (example addressing separate offenses and conduct)
- Wise v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind.1999) (principle of accomplice responsibility)
- Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (broad-factor review for Rule 7(B) assessments)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.2008) (sentencing factors and appropriateness considerations)