Webb v. State, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 99

Webb pled guilty to driving while suspended, robbery, six counts of fraud, and two counts of attempted fraud; aggregate sentence was 25 years with 20 years for robbery.
The robbery sentence was the maximum for that count but the aggregate term was substantially below the maximum possible.
Webb challenged only the robbery sentence and argued the court failed to provide a detailed sentencing statement and to find mitigating factors including mental health, age, remorse, willingness to pay restitution, and his guilty plea.
The court identified four aggravating factors and ordered specific counts to run concurrently, yielding an aggregate 25-year term served in DOC.
Webb contends the trial court abused its discretion and that his guilty plea should have been given mitigating weight; the State argues the plea had limited impact or no contractual benefit.
The Court affirms, holding aggregate sentence appropriate and that the guilty plea should have been recognized as a mitigating factor, though not changing the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May review focus on aggregate sentence?	Webb argues only robbery sentence should be reviewed.	State argues aggregate sentence is the proper focus.	Review must address aggregate sentence in context.
Was there abuse of discretion in sentencing statement and mitigating factors?	Webb contends the court lacked a reasonably detailed statement and ignored mitigating factors.	State argues the statement was detailed and that mitigating factors were appropriately weighed.	No abuse; statement reasonably detailed; four aggravators supported; some mitigating factors not significant.
Should Webb's guilty plea be treated as a mitigating factor?	Webb pleads guilty without a plea bargain; plea should mitigate.	State claims no significant plea-based mitigation when no agreement exists.	Court abused discretion by not recognizing guilty plea as mitigating, but aggregate sentence likely unchanged.
Is the aggregate sentence inappropriate given the offender and offenses?	Webb argues mental health placement and overall sentence inappropriateness.	State contends sentence is appropriate given offense nature and offender history.	No; sentence affirmed as not inappropriate.

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.2008) (focus on aggregate sentence rather than individual counts)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing; need for detailed reasons)
Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235 (Ind.2004) (benefit to defendant from guilty plea merits mitigating consideration)
Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520 (Ind.2005) (guilty plea mitigating weight when no plea agreement and state-benefit considerations)
Simms v. State, 791 N.E.2d 225 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (waiver of mitigating factors if not raised at sentencing)
Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731 (Ind.2000) (age and mitigating weight considerations for younger offenders)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App.2008) (placement of sentence as opposed to the sentence itself in Appellate review)
McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.2009) (review of sentencing on aggregate grounds when appealing multiple counts)