Theodore Lincoln Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A02-1612-CR-2814
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Theodore Lincoln Jones (57) pled guilty without a plea agreement to Level 1 felony child molesting and Level 5 felony child exploitation after his son discovered sexually explicit photos and videos of Jones abusing his 21‑month‑old granddaughter.
- Photographic and video evidence showed digital penetration, stimulation of the child’s vagina, exposure, and coercion involving Jones’ penis.
- Jones had a minimal criminal history (a 1991 DUI) and presented evidence of serious health problems and a 20‑year employment history at General Motors before disability.
- At sentencing the trial court found three aggravators: multiple counts, violation of a position of trust, and the nature/circumstances of the offenses.
- The court found two mitigators: guilty plea (saving time and expense) and 23 years of law‑abiding life, and imposed concurrent sentences of 40 years (Level 1) and 6 years (Level 5) for a total executed 40 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not finding certain proffered mitigating factors | Trial court properly weighed factors and permissibly rejected the claimed mitigators | Jones argued court should have found age, poor health, and 20‑year work history mitigating | No abuse of discretion; trial court not required to accept proffered mitigators and Jones did not show they were clearly supported or significant |
| Whether the 40‑year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence within statutory range, justified by severity and trust violation | Jones argued sentence is excessive given his character and health | Sentence not inappropriate; 40 years (10 above advisory) justified by nature of offense and breach of trust |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (clarifies standards for reviewing sentencing statements and appellate review of aggravators/mitigators)
- Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2000) (trial court not obligated to accept defendant’s characterization of mitigating circumstances)
- Haddock v. State, 800 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court need not explain why it rejects proffered mitigators)
- Dockery v. State, 504 N.E.2d 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (remand where trial court found no mitigators and defendant was elderly)
- Henderson v. State, 848 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (medical conditions not mitigating absent evidence they make incarceration unduly harsh or untreatable)
- Bennett v. State, 787 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (working history not a significant mitigator without detailed supporting proof)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for assessing sentence appropriateness)