Title: McGuire v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 09S02-1707-CR-491
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2017

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Mark K. Leeman  
 
 
 
 
 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Leeman Law Office and 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Cass County Public Defender 
 
 
 
 
 
Logansport, Indiana  
 
 
 
 
 
Tyler G. Banks 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
Andrew Achey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
Logansport, Indiana 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 09S02-1707-CR-491 
 
RODNEY J. MCGUIRE,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below).  
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court, No. 09C01-1502-FA-1 
The Honorable Leo T. Burns, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 09A02-1605-CR-1148 
_________________________________ 
 
July 21, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Rodney McGuire and his girlfriend had a long-term relationship which ended around 2013.  
In 2015, the girlfriend’s son, B.P., reported that McGuire had molested him repeatedly over the 
course of several years, beginning when B.P. was eight or nine years old.  The State charged 
McGuire with six counts of Class A felony child molesting.  In exchange for dismissal of five 
counts, McGuire pleaded guilty to one count of Class A felony child molesting.  During the plea 
hearing and at sentencing, the State, defense counsel, and the trial court expressed agreement that 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jul 21 2017, 3:39 pm
 
2 
 
the statutory sentencing range for McGuire’s crime was thirty to fifty years.  The trial court 
sentenced McGuire to forty years executed in the Department of Correction.  McGuire appealed, 
contending the trial court’s sentence was based on a mistaken understanding of the minimum 
sentence.  Indeed, the parties now agree the statutory sentencing range for McGuire’s crime was 
twenty to fifty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty years.  See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2012).   
 
The Court of Appeals affirmed McGuire’s forty-year sentence.  McGuire v. State, No. 
09A02-1605-CR-1148, 2017 WL 677734 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017), reh’g denied.  Though the 
parties did not cite a statute for the assumption that thirty years was the minimum sentence, the 
Court of Appeals presumed they relied on Indiana Code section 35-50-2-2(i).1  That statute 
permitted the trial court to suspend only the portion of McGuire’s sentence exceeding thirty years, 
because McGuire was over age twenty-one and B.P. was under age twelve at the time of the crime.  
Because the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of forty years, the Court of Appeals 
concluded it could “‘say with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same 
sentence’ had it properly considered the facts and law applicable to the case.”  McGuire, 2017 WL 
677732, *3 (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh’g, 875 
N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)).  McGuire seeks transfer, asking this Court to remand his case for 
resentencing.   
 
The Court of Appeals is correct that Indiana Code section 35-50-2-2(i) allowed the trial 
court to suspend any portion of McGuire’s sentence exceeding thirty years.  But the statute did not 
change the minimum sentence from twenty to thirty years.  See Miller v. State, 943 N.E.2d 348, 
349 (Ind. 2011).  We agree with McGuire that remand is appropriate.   
                                                 
1 As the Court of Appeals noted, this portion of the statute was not included in a later recodification.  
McGuire, 2017 WL 677734, at *2, n.3. 
 
3 
 
 
Accordingly, we grant transfer and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing 
consistent with this opinion.  We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion in all other 
respects.  See Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).    
 
Rush, C.J., and David and Slaughter, JJ., concur. 
Massa, J., dissents with separate opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
Massa, J., dissenting. 
 
The Court of Appeals, in its memorandum decision denying relief, concluded it could “‘say 
with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence’ had it properly 
considered the facts and law applicable to the case.”  McGuire v. State, No. 09A02-1605-CR-1148, 
2017 WL 677734, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017), reh’g denied (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 
868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)).  I concur completely 
with that assessment and thus cannot join in ordering an unnecessary remand.