Tradale Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1608-CR-1833

In December 2014, Tradale Jones confronted F.B. at 3:00 a.m. with a shotgun, forced her between houses and into a garage where a second man waited.
Jones and the second man removed F.B.’s clothing, took her phone, and forced her to perform oral sex on both men; Jones then raped her while the other held a shotgun. They threatened to kill her if she moved.
Officer encountered F.B. shortly after; police recovered her pants and shoes, and DNA from the sexual assault kit matched Jones.
Jones was charged with two counts of Level 1 rape, three Level 3 felonies (armed robbery, kidnapping while armed, criminal confinement while armed), and misdemeanor pointing a firearm; convicted of all felony counts but acquitted of pointing a firearm.
Sentencing: two concurrent 32-year terms for rape; three 9-year terms for the Level 3 felonies (one concurrent, two consecutive to each other and to a rape sentence), producing a 50-year aggregate sentence.
Jones appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the 50-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Issue	State's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Whether Jones’s 50-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Sentences were at or near advisory terms; cumulative 50 years is below the statutory maximum and justified by violent facts and criminal history	Sentence is excessive given his youth, expressed remorse, difficult upbringing, and limited prior felony record	Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given offense severity and offender character

Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing appropriateness of sentence)
Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review considers all record factors)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as starting point for appropriateness review)
Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (consecutive sentences determine maximum exposure)
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (role of criminal history in assessing offender’s character)
Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (insincerity of remorse undermines mitigating claim)
Coleman v. State, 952 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (youth can be mitigator only when defendant was immature or led astray)
Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (comparison of comparable sexual-violence sentences)