*1 SIMS, Douglas Appellant, Indiana, Appellee.
STATE of
No. 16S00-9101-CR-42.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Jan. Westerfeld, Indianapolis,
Brent ap- for pellant. Pearson, Gen.,
Linley E. Atty. Deana Mclntire, Gen., Deputy Atty. Indianapolis, appellee. for KRAHULIK, Justice.
Douglas pled guilty murder, Ind. 35-42-1-1(1). Code He received an en- § hanced sentence of 60 In this direct appeal, issue Sims raises is wheth- er the trial court properly considered cer- tain imposing circumstances in the maximum sentence. We affirm. 9,1990, On the evening Bradley March Maddux and planned his friends *2 272 circumstances, trial court gravating of the backyard in at one the sleep the outside young age, victim’s the fact that noted the Westport, Indiana. At in friend’s houses delinquency to of had contributed the Sims a.m., up picked Maddux 1:00 Sims about providing beverages, by alcoholic Maddux to and them his and friends took his two particularly nature of the and the brutal boys gave the
trailer in Sims Sardinia. The court concluded that wound inflicted. trailer, the drink. While at some to beer completely aggravating the circumstances to his bed. Mad- Maddux Sims handcuffed circumstances, outweighed any mitigating frightened and told dux’ friends became imposed the maximum sentence. and back to be taken to they wanted Sims released Maddux and re- Westport. Sims reviewing of a sen Our standard boys the tent. Later that the to turned Sentencing is tence is well established. met morning, with Sims in a Maddux same the of the trial conducted within discretion so apparently that Sims could parking lot only upon a court and will be reversed beverages alcoholic to provide additional that showing of a manifest abuse of discre Maddux returned to Maddux. Sims and is within the discretion of the trial tion. It the timé This was last Mad- Sims’ trailer. presumptive determine a court to whether seen alive. dux was sentence will be increased or decreased be aggravating mitigating or circum cause of police the learned Maddux When by A sentence authorized statute stances. the missing that Sims had been was and except sen will not be revised where the him, person police to see the inter- last manifestly unreasonable. Letica tence is he had He confessed that viewed Sims. (1991), Ind., 952, 569 N.E.2d 958 v. State boy the would not killed Maddux because omitted). (citations A not mani sentence is him He also do Sims wanted to do. what no reasonable festly unreasonable unless body police the where the could informed person appropri could find such sentence body When the was recovered be found. particular and offender ate to the offense cemetery, in grave from shallow an old a imposed. Ind. for which such sentence was except on his was nude for socks Maddux 17(B)(2). Appellate Rule a sentenc When gag His throat feet and a over his mouth. sentence, ing presumptive a court enhances slashed, nearly deeply point the of was to that the de the record “must demonstrate decapitation. The cause of death was de- upon the termination was based considera a exsanguination to be result termined crime, specific the the tion of the facts of of laceration of the throat. the aggravating mitigating circumstances and urges prop- to that the court failed Sims involved, the and the relation of sentence aspects erly significant all the of consider imposed objectives will to the which be condition, his character and as well the by served that sentence.” Fointno Specifically, the offense. nature of Sims Ind., (1986), 487 N.E.2d State maintains the trial court failed to con- identify The trial court’s statement must supported to which an in- sideration facts mitigating aggravating all and likely engage that Sims was not to ference circumstances, specific a .include reason he in future criminal conduct: because had why mitigating ag is each circumstance or prior history, enjoyed criminal a no he had gravating, weigh mitigating circum and good reputation community, in the had against aggravating stances the factors. thought school, inof had been well been Ind., (1991), Boyd v. 564 N.E.2d State arrest, employed regularly prior his and honorably in had served the United States of record reveals Our review the Army and the Indiana National Guard. did, fact, trial all court consider addition, guilt he had admitted his thus miti of the factors which Sims claims were expense the in- relieving the State of required The gating. trial court is not convenience a trial. particular with defendant that each urged factors considered Of the be mitigating a Of factor is factor. those only mitigating, factors, the trial court found the court found to be trial history lack mitigating. criminal and Sims’ ex- The court then enumerated the factors, each, pressed aggravating gave mitigating. ag- remorse to be As reasons for outweigh them to and found prop-
factors. hold that the trial court We
erly aggravating mitigat- evaluated the
ing adequately circumstances and set forth *3 balancing process.
the court’s
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Sims’ sentence for murder
is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN and
DICKSON, JJ., concur.
DeBRULER, J., separate dissents with
opinion.
DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting.
I nature this crime of
murder, does, involving youthful it
victim, wrongly exploit an intent young person, warrants an enhance- beyond
ment of the sentence the standard However,
forty-years. appellant’s charac- background,
ter and described
majority opinion, is entitled to
weight my opinion well. it is mani-
festly maximum, unreasonable to sixty-years, thereby
enhanced sentence of
failing appellant’s to translate character background into some manifest re- upon
straint the extent of the enhance-
ment. I order this would sentence reduced
to 52 Margaret
Howard A. OELLING and
Oelling, Appellants-Plaintiffs,
Satya RAO, M.D.; Martinez, Jorge J.
M.D.; Consultants, Cardiovascular
P.C., Inc.; Hospital, and St. Catherine
Appellees-Defendants.
No. 46A05-9108-CV-251. Indiana, Appeals
Court of
Fifth District.
Dec.
Publication Ordered Jan.