Title: Smith v. State
Citation: 485 N.E.2d 898
Docket Number: 484S120
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 5, 1985

485 N.E.2d 898 (1985)
James E. SMITH, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 484S120.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
December 5, 1985.
*899 Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Ind., Sheila K. Swickey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Cheryl L. Greiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Defendant (Appellant) appeals the sentences that he received after pleading guilty to charges of Rape, a class A felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1 (Burns Code Ed. 1984 Supp.) and Criminal Confinement, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3 (Burns Code Ed. 1984 Supp.). The trial court enhanced the basic rape sentence by twenty (20) years and sentenced the Defendant to fifty (50) years imprisonment, the maximum sentence for a class A felony, Ind. Code 35-50-2-4 (Burns 1979 Repl.). The trial court also enhanced the sentence for criminal confinement by ten (10) years and sentenced the Defendant to twenty (20) years imprisonment, the maximum sentence for a class B felony, Ind. Code 35-50-2-5 (Burns 1979 Repl.). The sentences are to be served concurrently.
Defendant argues that these sentences are unreasonable. He actually raises three sub-issues within this argument:
1. That the trial court failed to make adequate findings to support enhanced sentences.
2. That the trial court utilized improper criteria to support its decision.
3. That the trial court gave inadequate consideration to mitigating factors.
We affirm.
Ind. Code § 35-4.1-4-3 [(35-50-1A-3), Burns 1979)] provided:
[Repealed by P.L. 311-1983 § 3; For current law see Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (Burns 1985.)]
In regard to subsection 3(3), if a trial court exercises its discretion to enhance the basic sentence for a crime, it must make a statement of its reasons for selecting the sentence. Page v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021, 1022. Mere repetition of the statutory criteria for aggravating circumstances does not satisfy the statute's requirements. Such statements are legal conclusions and we must be told of the facts found in support of those conclusions to enable us to perform our function of reviewing the trial court's discretion. Page, 424 N.E.2d  at 1023. Of course, the trial court's reasons must be supported by the record. Id.
In the case at bar, the trial court made the following statements at the sentencing hearing:
The criteria for sentencing, Ind. Code 35-4.1-4-7 [repealed by P.L. 311-1983 § 49; For current law see Ind. Code 35-38-1-7 (Burns 1985)] read:
Defendant argues that the trial court merely repeated subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) of section 7 and alluded to "some physical damage" as an aggravating factor. Defendant alleges that neither the information *901 nor the factual basis for his plea supports a finding of serious bodily injury. He also implicitly contends that the use of a knife cannot be used to support an enhanced sentence because the use of a weapon is an element of rape as a class A felony. Green v. State (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 635, remand 424 N.E.2d 1014.
First, we perceive additional reasons for enhancement in the trial court's statement. The trial court mentioned "the indiscriminate nature of the (sic) offense" and "the total disregard for the life and safety of others involved in this case, not only the victim but the victim's son." Then, as Defendant pointed out, the trial court recalled "that there was some physical damage in this case as a result of your  the commission of this crime."
The trial court could have stated its reasons more explicitly and with more references to the underlying facts. Nevertheless, the trial court's findings are minimally adequate to sustain its decision and they do afford a basis for our review. The record contains the following facts that support the trial court's findings.
On March 5, 1981, the victim and her three year old son went to a shopping center. While they were shopping, Defendant entered her car and hid under some clothes. He was armed with a knife. The victim and her son returned to the car and drove away from the shopping center. After a short time, Defendant rose from the back seat, placed his knife in front of the victim and ordered her to park the car. She obeyed. Defendant pushed her into the passenger seat and he took control of the car. Then he drove the victims to a condominium development, where he told the victim to have sexual intercourse with him and threatened her with his knife. The victim refused and the Defendant poked her with the knife, thereby causing her injury, and struck her on the shoulder. Defendant told the victim to put her son outside the car. The victim continued to resist and told the Defendant she would not submit while he still held the knife. He responded that he would put down the knife if she put her son in the back seat. She did so and he placed the knife outside the car. The victim removed her pants, and Defendant also undressed and had intercourse with the victim. After a few minutes, Defendant told the victim to remove her blouse and bra, and being in fear of him, she obeyed.
After the act of sexual intercourse, Defendant drove to a nearby area and discussed killing the victim. However, he decided to let her go but to take her car. He released the victim and her son and he took the car.
After his arrest, Defendant told police that he had purchased the knife on the day these crimes occurred in anticipation of stealing a car.
This evidence clearly supports the trial court's findings that Defendant totally disregarded the safety of others, including the victim's young son, that the crimes were indiscriminate in nature, and that there was physical harm to the victim. In turn, these findings support the trial court's legal conclusions that Defendant is in need of correctional or rehabilitative care provided by a penal facility and that lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crimes. The trial court did not merely recite the statutory criteria.
Because there is evidence of physical injury to the victim, the Defendant's argument that the use of a knife cannot be used as an aggravating factor is erroneous. As charged, the elements of rape included "by using force and while armed with a deadly weapon." The elements of confinement included "by threat of force, and while armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife." The informations did not allege injury to the victim. Therefore, the enhancement was not predicated upon factors that were elements of the crimes, but upon an additional factor, actual injury to the victim. We also note that physical injury was not the only aggravating factor found and that even without a finding that an injury was inflicted, the remaining factors *902 would support enhancement of the sentences.
Relying on the dissent in McNew v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 214, 391 N.E.2d 607 (Prentice, J., dissenting), Defendant argues subsection (c)(4) of Ind. Code § 35-4.1-4-7 cannot be used to enhance a sentence, but instead can only be used to deny probation or to deny reduction of a basic sentence. However, assuming the correctness of the dissenter's position in McNew, this subsection does not warrant reversal in the case before us. The trial court also concluded Defendant is in need of correctional or rehabilitative care in a penal institution. This conclusion is supported by the facts, and standing alone, it would support enhancement of the sentences.
Finally, Defendant argues the trial court failed to give proper consideration to mitigating factors, in addition to his age, including: 1) his lack of a prior criminal record; 2) his feelings of remorse; 3) his limited intellectual ability; and 4) his prior psychiatric counselling.
A trial court has broad discretion to consider and weigh mitigating circumstances. Cary v. State (1984), Ind. 469 N.E.2d 459. Furthermore, Ind. Code § 35-4.1-4-7 does not require a trial court to consider mitigating factors. Rather, it merely permits it to do so and to determine what may constitute mitigating factors in a particular case.
Here, the trial court gave more weight to aggravating factors and also found the Defendant's age to be the only mitigating factor, notwithstanding that the other points Defendant has raised were presented to it. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion, given the circumstances of this case. Cary v. State, supra. Likewise, we do not find the sentences to be manifestly unreasonable. Ind. R.App.Rev.Sen. 2.
The judgment is affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and SHEPARD, JJ., concur.