Case Title: Hammons v. State

Citation: 493 N.E.2d 1250

Docket Number: 

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1986-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
493 N.E.2d 1250 (1986)
Clyde HAMMONS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 185S21.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 25, 1986.
*1251 Timothy L. Bookwalter, Joseph P. Maguire, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
SHEPARD, Justice.
Appellant Clyde Hammons was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3 (Burns 1985 Repl.), dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-2 (Burns 1985 Repl.), violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, a class D felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7 (Burns 1985 Supp.), dealing in sawed-off shotguns, a class D felony, Ind. Code § 35-47-5-4 (Burns 1985 Repl.), and carrying a handgun without a license, a class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-47-2-23 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The court imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty years, twenty years, four years, four years, and one year, respectively, for a total of forty-nine years.
Appellant raises the following three issues in this direct appeal:
Appellant argues that the trial judge imposed the maximum sentence for voluntary manslaughter to compensate for what he regarded as the jury's error in failing to find Hammons guilty of murder as charged. Appellant cites the following statement made by the court at the first sentencing hearing:
Appellant is correct that the foregoing demonstrates that the trial judge enhanced the sentence because he believed that the evidence supported a verdict for murder.
*1252 Subsequently, the State filed a motion for remand and re-sentencing with this Court, noting the trial court's failure to state the facts which supported enhancement of the sentences. This Court granted the State's motion and directed the trial court to "re-sentence appellant setting out the aggravating factors, if any, and the mitigating factors, if any, in connection with the re-sentencing."
At this re-sentencing hearing the court stated that it found:
The judge's view of the case also was reflected in the docket entry which recited the aggravating factors he found:
The court then ordered the same sentence it had imposed originally.
Intermingling a particularized statement of the seriousness of the crime (Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7(b)(4)) with the judge's assessment of the jury verdict does not remove the suspect nature of the enhancement. In Gambill v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 301, this Court ordered the trial judge to re-sentence the defendant to the presumptive term since the record "manifest[ed] that the trial court enhanced the sentence by reason of a consideration that is beyond the pale of his authority." Gambill, 436 N.E.2d  at 304. In that case the trial court had found statutory aggravating factors present and stated:
This Court concluded:
In Gambill, the trial court's statement of reasons for enhancing the defendant's sentence was also deficient because it merely traced the conclusory language of the statute. A remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the statutory guidelines was deemed inappropriate since the trial judge had already indicated his predisposition.
The case at bar is not one in which the judge merely entertained mild skepticism of the jury verdict based upon the evidence presented at trial. See, Wilson v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 654 (judgment affirmed; judge was not resolutely opposed to the jury verdict of voluntary manslaughter but attributed the verdict to the good performance of defense counsel). On three different occasions, the trial judge stated for the record that he disagreed with the jury verdict for voluntary manslaughter because there was sufficient evidence for a murder verdict. At the first sentencing hearing he stated, after reciting his assessment, that he therefore would sentence defendant to the maximum term. At the second hearing and in the docket entry, the judge gave his assessment in terms which describe an act of murder and proceeded to impose the same sentence. We conclude that this action is more like the act of compensation for the jury's decision apparent in Gambill and not like the skepticism shown in Wilson. We therefore remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to re-sentence Hammons to the presumptive term for voluntary manslaughter.
Hammons argues that the enhancement of his sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentences were based upon improper considerations. He maintains that the trial judge failed to consider mitigating circumstances and used improper aggravating circumstances in his sentencing determination.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the court to consider the following as mitigating circumstances: defendant had not been in trouble for the past seventeen years, defendant had been employed for sixteen years, and the present offenses occurred in an isolated situation. Hammons claims that the trial court ignored these factors which it was required to consider when it imposed the maximum sentence.
When the trial court imposes the presumptive sentence for an offense this Court presumes that the court considered the risk that the person will commit another crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime committed, and the prior criminal record, character, and condition of the person. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7 (Burns 1985 Repl.); Keys v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 52, 390 N.E.2d 148. The court must include within the record a statement of its reasons for selecting the sentence it imposes only when the court finds aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances. Ind. Code 35-38-1-3 (Burns 1985 Repl.).
The trial court's statement of reasons must include the following three elements: (1) it must identify all of the significant mitigating and aggravating circumstances, (2) it must state the specific reason why each circumstance is considered to be mitigating or aggravating, and (3) it must articulate that the court evaluated and balanced the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances to determine if the mitigating circumstances offset the aggravating circumstances. Henderson v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 68. Requiring the sentencing judge to state the reasons for imposing a particular sentence has a dual purpose. First, it insures the judge considered only proper matters when imposing sentence and thus safeguards against the imposition of sentences which are arbitrary or capricious. Second, it enables the appellate court to determine the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Abercrombie v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 407, 417 N.E.2d 316.
The statement of reasons expounded by the court must be factually specific. Some of the aggravating circumstances are by their nature factual and, if listed, require no further substantiation. (An aggravating circumstance such as a 65-year-old victim, for example, requires only the statement of fact or a finding that the victim was 65 years old.) However, others are merely conclusory and must be substantiated by specific facts. (Thus, if a defendant has a history of criminal activity, the incidents comprising such activity should be recited.) Page v. State (1980), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021. The mitigating circumstances which are recited in the statute are only conclusory. A sentence based on mitigating circumstances therefore requires "a statement of facts to evidence its validity or reasonableness." Id.
The trial court is required to render a description of mitigating circumstances when it reduces the presumptive sentence or when it uses mitigating circumstances to offset the aggravating circumstances which serve to enhance the sentence. Dudley v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 881; Warner v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 355; Robinson v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1287; Gardner v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 627, 388 N.E.2d 513.
Under other circumstances, the use of mitigating circumstances in the determination of the ultimate sentence[1] is not mandatory, Wagner v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 476; it is discretionary with the sentencing court. Sylvester v. State (1985), Ind., 484 N.E.2d 1; Rhoton v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 51; Freed v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 929. When a defendant argues mitigating circumstances to the trial court, the sentencing judge is not obligated to explain why he has chosen not to make a finding of mitigation. This is particularly true when an examination of the underlying record shows the highly disputable nature of the mitigating factors. *1255 Stark v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 43; Frappier v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1188. Moreover, the trial court is not obligated to credit or weigh the defendant's evidence of mitigating circumstances the same way the defendant does. Perry v. State (1983), Ind., 447 N.E.2d 599. However, the failure of the trial court to find mitigating circumstances which are clearly supported by the record may reasonably give rise to a belief that they were overlooked and hence not properly considered. Page, 424 N.E.2d  at 1023.
In this case, mitigating circumstances were offered to offset the aggravating factors, rather than to reduce the presumptive term. The trial judge did not explain which mitigating factors he thought were present; he simply recited that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and then imposed maximum sentences. The only uncontroverted mitigating circumstance presented by the defendant was his employment record. Whether the defendant had a criminal history and whether the present offenses were isolated incidents remain unclear. The presentence report and its addendum indicated that Hammons has a criminal history. The incidents comprising this history were disputed by the defendant, and the court did not use this factor as a basis to enhance Hammon's sentences. The trial court's conclusion that the mitigating circumstances were outweighed by the aggravating circumstances indicates that the court did not deem appellant's employment record to be a significant mitigating factor. Therefore, there was no obligation of the court to identify or balance the mitigating factors argued by defendant.
Hammons maintains that the sentences were enhanced based upon improper aggravating factors. We conclude otherwise.
At the first sentencing hearing, the judge merely concluded that a reduced sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. In the judge's finding of fact and reasons for aggravating circumstances, he indicated "number 3 and number 4 of statute providing for aggravation." At the resentencing hearing the court found the following to be aggravating factors:
The judge generally concluded that the imposition of a reduced sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed. The judge based his conclusion on the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed, and the defendant's character. The trial court is not precluded from considering the nature and circumstances of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed, or the character of the defendant as aggravating circumstances. Limp v. State (1983), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 189.
Appellant argues that the total sentence of forty-nine years is manifestly unreasonable and should be reduced to presumptive terms on all counts, to be served concurrently.
This Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute only when the sentence imposed is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character *1256 of the offender. Indiana Rules for the Appellate Review of Sentences, Rule 2(1). In this case, the victim was fatally shot in the back several times by a man who was armed with an arsenal of weapons and engaged in drug dealing and consumption. In view of the court's statement of aggravating circumstances, the sentence was not such that no reasonable person could find such sentence inappropriate to the particular offense and offender. Indiana Rules for the Appellate Review of Sentences, Rule 2(2).
The cause is remanded with instructions to vacate the sentence for voluntary manslaughter previously entered and to sentence the defendant to the presumptive term instead. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DeBRULER and DICKSON, JJ., concur.
GIVAN, C.J., and PIVARNIK, J., dissent without opinion.
[1]  Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7(c).