William Epperly v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A05-1704-CR-812
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- In Jan 2016 Epperly, intoxicated (BAC alleged .17), drove into Erin Wetzold’s car, causing injuries; he left the scene on foot.
- Police found an empty vodka bottle in Epperly’s truck; he was located at a mobile home park, smelled of alcohol, refused breath/chemical tests, threatened officers, resisted a hospital blood draw, and urinated on himself during transport.
- Charges included two Class A misdemeanors (operating while intoxicated causing endangerment; leaving the scene with bodily injury), a Class A resisting law enforcement charge (later dismissed), an infraction (no financial responsibility), and a habitual substance offender allegation (dismissed at plea).
- Epperly pled guilty to the two Class A misdemeanors and admitted the infraction; the State read Wetzold’s victim-impact statement describing serious, lifelong injuries.
- The trial court sentenced Epperly to one year on each Class A misdemeanor, initially ordered consecutive terms but then amended the order to run the two sentences concurrently, resulting in an aggregate one-year executed jail term.
- Epperly appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to identify/weight aggravators/mitigators and by imposing consecutive sentences, and that his aggregate one-year sentence was manifestly unreasonable (restated as inappropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Epperly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not identifying/weighing aggravating/mitigating factors | Not required for misdemeanor sentencing; sentence lawful | Court should have identified and weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances | No abuse; court need not articulate such factors for misdemeanors (statutory framework) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing consecutive sentences | Sentencing within court's discretion (but court ultimately ordered concurrent) | Court imposed consecutive sentences improperly | No merit; order was amended to run concurrently |
| Whether aggregate one-year sentence is inappropriate | Sentence supported by offense and offender history | Sentence is manifestly unreasonable/inappropriate | Waived for lack of cogent argument; merits review also finds sentence not inappropriate |
| Whether appellate standard "manifestly unreasonable" applies | Use current Rule 7(B) inappropriateness standard | Claimed manifest unreasonableness | Court restated claim under Rule 7(B); applied appropriateness review and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557 (2016) (trial court not required to identify/weight aggravators/mitigators for misdemeanor sentence)
- Creekmore v. State, 853 N.E.2d 523 (2006) (same principle for misdemeanors)
- Marcus v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1134 (2015) (explaining obsolescence of "manifestly unreasonable" standard)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (2008) (purpose and limits of Rule 7(B) review)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (2012) (Rule 7(B) reviews whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence would be better)
- Foutch v. State, 53 N.E.3d 577 (2016) (waiver of sentencing challenge for lack of cogent argument)