William A. Parks v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. LEXIS 956
| Ind. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 15, 2012 Parks participated in producing methamphetamine (one-pot method) at an apartment; strong chemical odors alerted occupants and police.
- Officers discovered lab indicia (lithium batteries, containers, funnels, filters, homemade smoking device); Parks admitted using and attempting to cook meth and estimated small yields (~0.75 g twice).
- Parks was charged with multiple counts including Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine (enhanced because manufacture occurred within 1,000 feet of family housing); convictions on Counts I–IV, with Counts I, III, IV merged into Count II.
- Trial court found aggravators (criminal history, probation revocations, failed rehab attempts, substance-abuse history) and mitigators (family support, cooperation, remorse) and imposed an aggregate 40-year sentence (26 years DOC, 4 years community corrections, 10 years suspended).
- Parks appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) as to sentence appropriateness (nature of offense and character). The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Parks' Argument | State/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parks’ 40-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence excessive given small quantities, brief operation, personal use inference, cooperation, remorse, family support, addiction history | Sentence justified by proximity to family housing, dangerous manufacturing method, Parks’ criminal history and probation violations, risk to reoffend | Majority: Sentence reduced to 30 years (20 DOC, 2 community corrections, 8 suspended); trial court’s sentence found excessive |
| Weight of aggravators vs mitigators in sentencing review | Mitigators (remorse, cooperation, family support) should reduce sentence | Aggravators (criminal history, probation revocations, failed rehab, substance abuse) outweigh mitigators | Majority: mitigation persuasive enough to lower sentence; trial court’s balance revised |
| Deference owed to trial court under Rule 7(B) | Appellate revision warranted here despite deference because sentence inappropriate in light of offense and character | Appellate courts should show high restraint; this case not rare/exceptional; trial court’s considered mid-range sentence should stand | Dissent: would have affirmed trial court; majority still exercised 7(B) authority to reduce sentence |
| Proper allocation of reduced sentence components | N/A (Parks sought overall reduction) | N/A | Majority specified new breakdown: 30-year aggregate—20 DOC, 2 community corrections, 8 suspended (4 supervised, 4 unsupervised) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate sentence revision under Rule 7(B) and deference to trial court)
- Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967 (Ind. 2002) (acknowledging differing reasonable views on sentence appropriateness)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (discussing appellate review role as a check distinct from trial judge’s local perspective)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to persuade appellate court under Rule 7(B))
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (standards for appellate sentencing review)