Title: Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 71S03-1306-CR-455
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2013

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Jeffrey L. Sanford 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
South Bend, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Angela N. Sanchez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 71S03-1306-CR-455 
 
VALENTIN ESCOBEDO, 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01-0812-FA-49 
The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-1202-CR-60 
_________________________________ 
 
June 28, 2013 
 
Dickson, Chief Justice. 
 
 
Sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty-three years upon convictions for Battery, a class 
A felony, and Neglect of a Dependent as a class D felony, the defendant appealed asserting 
claims of error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and seeking appellate sentence review and 
revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  Escobedo v. State, 
987 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).  We now grant transfer to address a single point. 
 
 
In rejecting the defendant's request for appellate sentence revision, the Court of Appeals 
summarized its analysis as follows: "In other words, the maximum sentence here can be justified 
Jun 28 2013, 11:36 am
 
2 
as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and cir-
cumstances of the crime."  Id. at 120.  We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a commu-
nity's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence.  Notwithstanding this refer-
ence, however, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence 
imposed by the trial court is appropriate and should be affirmed. 
 
 
In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.  Indiana 
Appellate Rule 58(A)(2). 
 
Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.