Title: Chambers v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Noah T. Williams 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Stuart K. Baggerly 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Bloomington, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Katherine Modesitt Cooper 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 53S01-1307-CR-459 
 
 
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court 
No. 53C09-1106-FB-000558 
The Honorable Teresa D. Harper, Judge 
  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 53A01-1209-CR-401 
_________________________________ 
 
July 2, 2013 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Following a bench trial, Michael Chambers was convicted of two counts of sexual 
misconduct with a minor as class B felonies.  See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9.  The sentencing range 
for each count is six to twenty years imprisonment; the advisory term is ten years.  See I.C. § 35-
Jul 02 2013, 2:25 pm
2 
 
50-2-5.  In sentencing Chambers to maximum consecutive terms (a total of forty years executed), 
the trial court found “substantial aggravating circumstances” and noted the following 
information.  (See Tr. pp. 273-76.)   
 
Chambers had a criminal history that included felony convictions for forgery in 1999 and 
2001, fraud in 1999, and theft in 2001, 2004 and 2012, and misdemeanor convictions for 
furnishing alcohol to a minor in 2004 and possession of marijuana in 2010.  In addition, the trial 
court considered it “reflective of [Chambers’s] character” that a number of other charges had 
been filed against him, even if the charges had been dismissed.  Those charges included 
conversion, receiving stolen property, fraud, theft, intimidation, forgery twice, check deception, 
habitual offender enhancements, possession of paraphernalia, burglary and criminal mischief.  
Chambers had shown a history of failure of rehabilitative efforts, the trial court said, by having 
violated probation in 1999, 2000, and 2004, and parole in 2010, and having been on parole when 
he committed the instant offenses.  His conduct of violating probation and parole and his 
behavior while incarcerated showed a certain disrespect for authority, the trial court said. 
 
In addition, the trial court noted, the victim in this case had diminished mental capacity 
and did not have the same abilities of other fourteen or fifteen year olds.  The offenses occurred 
on different days in different locations and caused the girl some pain.  Chambers, who was in his 
thirties, had been living in the girl’s home at the time; his fiancée was a best friend of the girl’s 
mother, and the mother (who had four daughters) had allowed Chambers and his fiancée to live 
with the family rent-free because they had nowhere else to stay.  The trial court found this 
violation of trust an aggravating circumstance.  The trial court found no mitigating 
circumstances.  
3 
 
 
A majority of the Court of Appeals panel revised the sentence to concurrent terms of 
twenty years, concluding that the forty-year executed sentence was an outlier in comparison to 
Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 2001), and Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. 
2008).  See Chambers v. State, No. 53A01-1209-CR-401 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2013) (mem. 
dec.).  The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, noted that Chambers has a more significant 
criminal history than the defendants in those cases and that the nature and circumstances of the 
offenses Chambers committed was not the same.   
 
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).   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.  See 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.     
 
Our collective judgment is that the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case is not 
inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and does not warrant appellate revision.  Accordingly, 
we grant transfer, 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).   
 
Dickson, C.J., and David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur. 
Rucker, J., concurs in result.