Zachary L. Lewis v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 372
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lewis and his live-in girlfriend Cohen argued heatedly on July 24–25, 2014.
- Cohen awoke with a hot hair-straightening tool against her thigh and an eyebrow shaved while she slept.
- Lewis later went to friend Jacque Stephan’s home, where Cohen and Stephan were inside; Lewis yelled Cohen’s name and refused to leave.
- Stephan was pushed to the ground, injuring her as her body struck two parked cars.
- A jury convicted Lewis of one Level 6 felony battery (Cohen) and one Class A misdemeanor battery (Stephan), and the trial court sentenced him to 2½ years and 1 year, respectively, to run consecutively for a total of 3½ years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the batteries constitute an episode of criminal conduct | Lewis argues the two batteries form an episode. | The State contends they do not form an episode. | No episode; even if an episode, statutory limit does not apply. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing | Lewis claims the court failed to provide a detailed, supported sentencing rationale. | The State argues the court properly used criminal history as an aggravator and that consecutive sentences were warranted. | No abuse; record supports enhanced sentence and consecutive terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requires adequate articulation of reasons in sentencing decisions)
- Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008) (consecutive sentences require explanation of aggravating circumstances)
- Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 2001) (criminal history as aggravating factor must be recited when supporting enhanced sentence)
- Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (single aggravator can support both enhanced and consecutive sentences, but must be clearly articulated)
- McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. 2001) (injury to multiple victims supports consecutive sentences)
- Abercrombie v. State, 417 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. 1981) (sentencing reasons serve goals of rationality and rehabilitation; need for reasoned rationale)