Timothy Weakley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1604-CR-739
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- On January 25–26, 2015, Timothy Weakley committed four armed robberies at separate businesses in Indianapolis, each time brandishing a handgun, threatening to kill or shoot employees, and taking cash (roughly $40–$200 per incident).
- Police identified Weakley from store surveillance; he fled when spotted by officers but was later apprehended and identified by a victim.
- The State charged Weakley with four counts of Level 3 felony armed robbery and one count of Level 4 unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; the Level 4 count was dismissed before trial.
- A jury convicted Weakley of the four Level 3 felony robbery counts; Weakley pled guilty to being a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced Weakley to consecutive 13-year terms on each robbery count (52 years) plus the minimum 6-year habitual-offender enhancement, for an aggregate 58-year sentence.
- Weakley appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the aggregate sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weakley’s 58-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: Sentence is appropriate given multiple armed robberies, separate victims, and weakley’s criminal history | Weakley: Sentence is excessive relative to offense nature and his personal history (PTSD, substance abuse, remorse, surrender) | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; multiple armed robberies and extensive criminal history justify consecutive terms and enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review should focus on aggregate sentence and defer to trial court)
- Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. 2014) (advisory sentence is the legislature’s starting point)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (enhanced and consecutive sentences justified when separate harms occur against multiple victims)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (criminal history is a relevant consideration in assessing offender’s character)