*1 SCHECKEL, Appellant Matt
(Defendant Below), Indiana, Appellee
STATE Below). (Plaintiff
No. 67S00-9211-CR-923. of Indiana.
Supreme Court
Aug.
682 Defender, Carpenter,
Susan K. Public Defender, Harper, Deputy Teresa D. Public IN, Indianapolis, appellant. for Carter, Gen., Atty. Pamela Deana M. Melntire, Gen., Deputy Atty. Indianapolis, IN, appellee.
DICKSON, Justice. appeal challenges
This direct imposition 60-year of an enhanced felony A sentence for class murder. De- fendant-appellant presents Matt Scheckel issues, various which we restate as follows: (1) whether sentence was upon unsupported improper ag- based cireumstances, (2) gravating whether range trial court misunderstood the sentences, (8) available whether mitigating court failed to consider record, (4) supported by stances manifestly whether the sentence is unrea- sonable. Because of our resolution of the issues, other the issue of overall sentence reasonableness will not be addressed. pre- The offense of murder carries a sumptive 40-year sentence, with not more years than 20 added for cir- cumstances or not more than 10 sub- tracted for circumstances. Ind. judge, pursu- Code 35-50-2-38. The trial § an ac his father was fight and room statutory criteria ant to the knowledged alcoholic. 35-38-1-7.1(b), identified under circumstances, found no eight (8) finds The court or rehabilitative correctional cireumstances, in need of and added found can best be statutory treatment *3 presumptive sentencing or- further finds and the court penal facility The for murder. attempts at rehabil- following prior as that there were the der identified failed. that have this defendant itation of circumstances: 166-67. history that Record at (1) prior criminal There is a Coun- A Wells alcohol abuse. of consists Circumstances Aggravating 90D01- number in cause ty conviction that the trial asserts The defendant the In- 9006-CM-2329, Driving Under considered, part of his as erroneously court that The court notes Alcohol. fluence of charges did prior which history, criminal charged four with was A record of ar result in conviction. not Driving Under convicted of counts more, the rest, does not establish without Another con- Alcohol. of the Influence committed that a defendant fact historical County, cause number in Adams viection properly may not be a criminal offense 01D01-9005-CM-137, defen- the wherein prior of criminal as considered evidence counts and charged nine dant was Ind., (1991), v. State counts, II, Oper- history. Tunstill Count of three convicted However, a record of 539, 544. a N.E.2d Intoxicated as While ating a Vehicle one, may lengthy arrests, particularly IV, Driv- misdemeanor, Reckless Count de has not been a defendant reveal that violence, III, a crime of ing, and Count subject to having been after terred even Enforcement. Resisting Law Id. at authority of the State. police the probation on (2) That the defendant to may be relevant information 545. Such committed. of the crime the time of the defendant's assessment the Court's or know whether (3) does not The Court that he will of the risk in terms character against grudge had a defendant not the In its discus crime. Id. another commit matter, it's clear in this but the victim history, prior criminal sion of in the slapped defendant was that the mentions statement court's night evening the on earlier the face of only in the context charged offenses committed. crime was that the leading to convictions charges multiple the victim was (4) finds that The Court charged counts. of the or more upon one infirm state mentally or physically in a prior eriminal of The trial had a at 3:00 a.m. and asleep that he was rely upon mere arrests not history does percent. of .18 alcohol content blood convictions. without charged offenses of the finds that the facts (5) The Court the tri contends The defendant in that the heinous particularly crime are resisting characterized improperly al court eleven repeatedly stabbed victim enforcement, charge to which law an act That is by the defendant. times a "crime of vio plea, as guilty entered violence. of extreme correctly points out while He lence." murder threw the (6) 85- of Ind.Code elements are § there two attempt to quarry the weapon into resisting law establish 44-38-83which defen- guilt. The of his hide evidence force, a the use involves enforcement nightstick threw dant later re defines of the statute component third try hide creek to bloody pants into a fleeing from as sisting law enforcement guilt. of his the officer officer after enforcement law means, identified has, by or audible defendant, visible he abuses (7) That stop. person to violent, and ordered alco- himself alcohol, and this can become Thus, 385-44-3-8(a)(8). his Ind.Code runs in § and violence hol abuse does resisting enforcement law extent in a bar father was killed in that his require application could, under necessarily Ind. occurrence which voked 85-88-1-7.1(c)(5), was, constitute evi- of Code force, absence § detail, potential mitigating circumstance. The factual dence of a underlying further characterizing the defen- ly inaccurate reasonably instead could have trial court resisting slapping law enforce- of the defendant interpreted dant's conviction However, regard- crime. ment as a violent defen- as motivation for the the victim premeditated dant to seek calculated nature of possible non-violent less resisting law conduct could conceiv- revenge. the defendant's This circumstance enforcement, trial court did ably qualify an pri- conviction as evidence recognize the 85-88-1-7.1(d), stance under aggrava- activity an or criminal statutorily enumer- provides that the *4 imposition of an en- ting cireumstance aggravating ated circumstances of subsec- hanced sentence. (c) (b) limit the matters tions do not determining in that a court consider contends that the tri The defendant the sentence. "the erroneously found that victim al court mentally infirm state physically in was that it The defendant also claims asleep at 3:00 a.m. and had in that he was to find improper was for the trial court percent." of .18 The content blood aleohol defendant, alco that "the abuses presented "the record concedes that State violent, hol, can and this alcohol become to any not contain reference appeal does on family in abuse and violence runs his content...." blood alcohol the victim's that his father was killed in a bar room the Appellee at 6. As to victim's Brief of fight acknowledged father an and his was the sleep, the defendant burst into state of ample alcoholic." While there morning during early motel room victim's engaged in that the defendant had alcohol may have been when the victim hours abuse, support the record does not the find entry asleep prior commotion. prior The ing of alcohol-related violence. Thereafter, however, the defendant and the inadequate to demon evidence is likewise scuffle, demonstrating engaged in a victim strate that alcoholism and violence asleep was not when the the victim predictors may be used as reliable of the Be occurred. Record at 152-58. murder propensities defendant's for similar behav support cause the evidence fails extent, finding To this the trial court's ior. finding court's the victim was a was error. mentally physically infirm state due to Notwithstanding the merit some content, it error sleep or blood alcohol was allegations of trial court defendant's aggravating find an circumstance under aggravating error in the consideration of 85-88-1-7.1(b)(6). Ind.Code § circumstances, reviewing "[wlhen argues The defendant that the trial identify aggravating can sufficient cireum- finding aggravating court's as an circum persuade stances to it that the trial court slapped in stance that "the defendant was would have entered the same sentence even evening night the face earlier on the impermissible factor it should absent crime committed" could was Day affirm the trial court's decision." interpreted as a rather than an (1990), Ind., State 560 N.E.2d 643. aggravating char circumstance. While the Despite improper a trial court's use of an suscep acterization of this cireumstance is aggravating circumstance to enhance interpretation, any to more than one tible sentence, this Court will affirm if the other striking of the defendant the victim aggravating adequate circumstances are hours occurred several before commis support imposed. the sentence Owens v. sion of the murder. The interval between (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 1378. State being slapped the defendant's and the com case, present In the the trial court's effectively depreciates mission of the crime presumptive of the sentence enhancement any apparent basis for the defendant's at tempt pro- to characterize the murder as a aggravating because of circumstances was Despite having merited. the erroneous of State's "saved" the defendant a 50- year inaccurate, sentence is we decline to several factors infer that it was a factor in the trial stances, are nevertheless convinced we that, presumptive enhancement of the misperceived aggra- even absent among since it is not cir- vators, aggrava- there other existed serious which, cumstances articulated the trial court's ting upon cireumstances considered together, the trial court would order. imposition
have based its
of an enhanced
Mitigating
Circumstances
The commission
sentence.
murder
heinous,
particularly
the defendant
it
defendant asserts
was error
probation
was on
at the time the murder
for the trial court
to find that
there were
committed,
an es-
had
argues
no
cireumstances.
He
prior
history,
previ-
tablished
criminal
presented
that because
evidence was
ous rehabilitative
treatment
of the defen-
establish that he met
of the statuto-
several
dant was ineffective.
It was not error to ry
mitigation,
criteria of
the trial court
proven aggravating
consider
cireum-
mitigate
must have overlooked facts which
stances to
an enhancement of the
his sentence.
presumptive
sentence.
*5
requires
35-38-1-3
if
aggravating
the trial court finds
Misunderstanding
2.
of
mitigating circumstances, its record must
Potential Sentences
include "a statement of the court's reasons
The defendant contends that
the trial
selecting
for
imposes."
the sentence that it
understanding
court was mistaken in its
The statement of reasons should contain
that because the State dismissed the bur-
1)
sig
elements:
identification of all
three
count,
glary
the trial court was absolved of
mitigating
nificant
and
cir
merey
a consideration of
extended to
found, 2) specific
cumstances
facts and rea
assertion,
In support
defendant.
of his
sons which lead the court to find the exis
following
the defendant cites the
statement
circumstance,
3)
tence of each such
and
by
during
issued
the trial court
the sen-
demonstrating
mitigat
articulation
that the
tencing hearing:
ing
cireumstances have
by dismissing
[burglary],
And
Count Two
in
been evaluated and balanced
determina
you potential fifty
the State has saved
a
tion of the sentence. Hammons v. State
years
prison.
additional
in
And I think
(1986), Ind.,
1250, 1254;
493 N.E.2d
Jones
the State of Indiana has been as merciful
(1984), Ind.,
681,
v. State
467 N.E.2d
683.
as it can be.
previously
We have
with disfavor
looked
argues
Record at 296. The defendant
discuss,
upon a trial court
fails to
alternatively charged
because Count I
felo-
evaluate,
mitigating
or make a
of
ny
knowing
murder and intentional or
mur-
significant mitigating
factors when
cireum-
der,
proceeded
if he had
to trial and been
clearly supported by
stances are
the rec
theory,
convicted of Count I on either
he
(1986), Ind.,
ord.
v. State
500
Wilkins
years
could not have been sentenced to 50
747,
N.E.2d
749.
a trial court
not
While
is
underlying burglary felony
for the
because
obligated
explain why
it has not chosen
underlying felony
merged
would have
finding mitigation,
to make a
Avance v.
felony
sentencing.
with the
murder at
(1991), Ind.,
1149, 1154,
567
State
N.E.2d
thus contends that
judge may
ignore
not
in
facts
in concluding
court erred
that he was
mitigate
record which
would
offense.
sentence,
potential 50-year
"saved" a
a
(1987),
Dockery
Ind.App.,
v. State
improperly
conclusion that
influenced the
291,
Thoroughness
N.E.2d
speci
297.
impose
trial
ficity
sentencing
facilitate
statement
enhancement.
meaningful
appellate review. Henderson
(1986), Ind.,
v.
489 N.E.2d
agree
State
72.
While we
with the defendant
the trial court's
statement
simply repeat
The trial court should not
servations,
providing hospital em-
further
language.
v.
statutory
Totten
State
519, 522;
Ind.,
performance appraisals reflecting
(1985),
Page
ployment
486 N.E.2d
Ind.,
1021, 1023,
(1981),
cooperative,
424 N.E.2d
friend-
that the defendant
State
Ind.,
(1982),
work, effective,
ly, willing
these biased nature. concerning
comments a defendant's judge reality faced the hard
When crime, extremely it is unrea-
of an brutal expect long him to enter into a
sonable to why
dissertation as to he does not believe impassioned plea grieving of a mother pontifications the naive of biased
friends. judge
I believe the trial in this case was why chosen obligated explain he had
to find no circumstances. See (1991), Ind., 566 N.E.2d
Gaddie v. State
535. I would affirm the trial court. VANCE, Appellant,
Michael Indiana, Appellee.
STATE
No. 49S00-9108-CR-633.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept.13,1993.