A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE

Jennifer A. Joas Gregory F. Zoeller Madison , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian Reitz Deput y Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

_______________________________ _______________________________________________



# In the Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________ No. 69S01

- 1301

- CR

- 24

C ALVIN M ERIDA , Appellant (Defendant b e low),

v. S TATE OF I NDIANA , Appellee (Plaintiff b e low)

.

_________________________________ Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court No. 69C01

- 1012

- FA

- 8 The Honorable Carl H. Taul , Judge

_________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 69A01

- 1203

- CR

- 110

_________________________________

May 17, 2013 ]
Per Curiam.
A n investigation showed Merida had been molesting a girl from the time she was five or six years old, starting perhaps as early as 2000. In all, Merida was charged with ten counts of child molesting covering th e period from 2000 through 2007. After a jury was empanelled but2

before evidence was offered, Merida pled guilty to two counts of child molesting as Class A
felonies. See Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 4

- 3(a) (2008). T he remaining counts were dismissed. The

sentenc ing range for a Class A felony is from twenty years to fifty years; the advisory sentence is thirty years. See I. C. § 35

- 50

- 2

- 4 (2008)

.

The trial court imposed consecutive advisory sentence s for a n aggregate term of sixty
years. As mitigating circum stances, the Court noted the guilty plea but did not accord it a lot of weight since the State and the victim had had to prepare for trial . The trial court also noted Merida’s lack of criminal history. The trial court discussed several aggravating circum stances

. Merida was in a position of having care, custody and control of the girl, and his conduct occurred

over a seven
- year period. Also, as a result of the offense becoming known in the community, the girl no longer attends public school and does not go out with friends or talk with them on the phone as she once did. S he has suffered an emotion al impact greater than in the usual case , the
trial court noted.

Citing Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), t he Court of Appeals revis ed the sentence s by
orderin g them to run concurrently , thus reducing the aggregate term from sixty years to thirty
years
. See Merida v. State , 977 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) , vacated

. We granted the State’s petition to transfer jurisdiction to this Court. See Merida v. State , 980 N.E.2d 8 41 (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
prov ides: “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of3

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 thi s 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. Card well 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 collecti ve 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.

Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.