Case Title: Lynch v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 40S05-1301-CR-23

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Leanna Weissmann 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Lawrenceburg, Indiana  
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joseph Y. Ho 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 40S05-1301-CR-23 
 
 
KIRK B. LYNCH, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Jennings Circuit Court 
No. 40C01-0907-FB-262 
The Honorable Jon W. Webster, Judge 
  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 40A05-1201-CR-26 
_________________________________ 
 
May 17, 2013 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Evidence at Lynch’s trial showed that one evening in 2009, the mother of a twelve-year-
old girl noticed her daughter had received an instant message through an internet account from 
Lynch, a man in his forties.  While pretending to be the girl, the mother participated in an instant 
May 17 2013, 11:10 am
2 
 
message conversation with Lynch.  Lynch wanted to see the girl.  In one colloquy, Lynch asked 
“[Y]ou know wat we gonna do don’t ya?” and he answered his own question, “[I]mma bed you 
baby.” (spelling and grammar in the original).  Lynch made arrangements to meet at a hotel.  The 
mother contacted police, and they apprehended Lynch in the hotel parking lot.  Lynch gave 
police several different explanations for being there.  Lynch was arrested at the end of the police 
interview, and during the booking process, he said to a police sergeant, “[I] drove all this way 
and didn’t even get laid.”  As relevant to these transfer proceedings, Lynch was convicted of 
Attempted Child Molesting, a Class A felony.  See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-4-3(a) (2008) (defining 
the offense of child molesting); 35-41-5-1 (2008) (defining attempt).   
 
 
The sentencing range for a Class A felony is twenty years to fifty years; the advisory 
sentence is thirty years.  See I. C. § 35-50-2-4 (2008).  The trial court imposed a sentence of forty 
years with five years suspended.  The trial court noted the following aggravating factors: the 
“significant and substantial evidence” that Lynch had contacted other girls and “was an Internet 
sexual predator and prowler;” Lynch had carefully planned the crime; and his criminal history 
which included a prior felony conviction and two misdemeanor convictions.  As mitigating 
factors, the trial court noted Lynch had a high school diploma and some employment history.  
Also, he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, depression, and panic attacks, but the 
court noted there was no evidence linking these conditions to Lynch’s conduct in this case. The 
trial court found the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and justified a 
sentence in excess of the advisory term.   
 
3 
 
 
Citing Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), a majority of the Court of Appeals panel revised the 
sentence to twenty years, the minimum term.  See Lynch v. State, No. 40A05-1201-CR-26 (Ind. 
Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2012) (mem. dec.), vacated.  We granted the State’s petition to transfer 
jurisdiction to this Court.  See Lynch v. State, 980 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Jan. 11, 2013) (table); App. 
R. 56(B) & 58(A).   
 
 
The authority granted by Article 7, § 4 of the Indiana Constitution permitting appellate 
review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which 
provides:  “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of 
the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 
the offense and the character of the offender.”  Under this rule, and as interpreted by case law, 
appellate courts may revise sentences after due consideration of the trial court's decision, if the 
sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 
offender.  Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind. 2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 
852, 856-57 (Ind. 2003).  The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers.  
Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.     
 
 
Having reviewed the matter, our collective judgment is that the sentence imposed by the 
trial court is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B), and does not warrant appellate 
revision.  Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court and summarily affirm 
the decision of the Court of Appeals in all other respects.  See App. R. 58(A)(2). 
 
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.