Zaccheus Ryan Ward v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1702-CR-371
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- In Nov. 2016 Ward entered a laundromat, touched Samantha Deck’s buttocks and genital area, slapped her twice (once inside, once outside), removed a cigarette from her mouth, and grabbed her face. He also threatened Deck, Aryn Muller, and William Robinson while brandishing a knife, saying “I’ll cut you.”
- Police found Ward nearby, arrested him, and recovered a pocketknife and a utility tool with a blade. He was charged with Level 5 intimidation (enhanced for a weapon), Level 6 criminal recklessness, Class B misdemeanor battery, and Class B obstruction; the State alleged habitual-offender status.
- Ward pleaded guilty to Level 5 intimidation and Class B misdemeanor battery and admitted being a habitual offender; other counts were dismissed under the plea agreement. He was on probation and had recently been convicted and sentenced for other offenses.
- The trial court found mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, substance-abuse issues) but gave limited weight to rehabilitation prospects; it found multiple aggravators (extensive criminal history, on probation at the time, reoffending shortly after prior sentencing, repeated violent acts, high risk to reoffend) and concluded they outweighed mitigation.
- The court imposed an aggregate eight-year sentence (six years for intimidation enhanced by two years for habitual-offender status, concurrent 180 days for battery), suspended one year to probation, and ordered seven years executed — with the final two years to be served through community corrections.
- Ward appealed under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward’s aggregate 8-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given weapon-enhanced threats, multiple batteries, extensive criminal history, probation status, and high risk to reoffend | Sentence is inappropriate relative to the nature of the offense and Ward’s character; conduct was only what was necessary to prove the elements | Affirmed; sentence not inappropriate — under maximum exposure and partially suspended with community corrections, and aggravators outweigh mitigators |
| Whether Ward’s conduct was only minimally sufficient to prove the offenses (i.e., not aggravated) | Conduct was aggravated — waved a knife, threatened three people, multiple unwanted sexual/physical contacts and assaults | Conduct was no more than required to establish the crimes | Held for State: conduct was more egregious than necessary to prove elements (knife threats, repeated batteries), supporting the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. 2011) (appellate authority for independent sentence review)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (framework for sentencing review and comparing advisory vs. actual sentence)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (deference to trial court sentencing; appellate role in correcting outliers)
- Sharp v. State, 970 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. 2012) (partially suspended sentences and alternative sanctions count toward aggregate sentence review)
- Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (sentences including alternatives to prison are less harsh than fully executed terms)
- Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (criminal history’s relevance to offender character in sentence review)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifies App. R. 7(B) focus on inappropriateness, not comparative appropriateness)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant’s burden to show sentence is inappropriate)