Opinion ID: 2630325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court acted within its discretion in denying killpack's request for probation

Text: ¶ 57 We now turn to the fifth and final issue on appeal. Killpack argues that her one-to-fifteen year prison sentence was inherently unfair and clearly excessive under a totality of the facts. Killpack maintains that in light of several mitigating factorsincluding that she lacked any previous criminal history, displayed a cooperative attitude, showed an ability for rehabilitation, and that imprisonment would entail excessive hardship on her husband and childrenthe trial court abused [its] discretion in choosing prison over probation. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's sentencing decision. ¶ 58 We have traditionally afforded trial courts wide latitude and discretion in sentencing, [33] recognizing that they are best situated to weigh the many intangibles of character, personality and attitude, of which the cold record gives little inkling. [34] Consequently, the decision of whether to grant probation must of necessity rest within the discretion of the judge who hears the case. [35] ¶ 59 In general, a trial court's sentencing decision will not be overturned unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion. [36] Although courts must consider all legally relevant factors in making a sentencing decision, not all aggravating and mitigating factors are equally important, and [o]ne factor in mitigation or aggravation may weigh more than several factors on the opposite scale. [37] Thus, several mitigating circumstances claimed by a defendant may be outweighed by a few egregious aggravating factors. ¶ 60 The trial court in this case pointed to two aggravating factors that, in its opinion, outweighed the mitigating factors outlined by Killpack: (1) the catastrophic events of the last week of Cassandra's life, including the last struggle between Killpack and Cassandra that resulted in the child's death; and (2) the fact that Killpack failed to acknowledge full responsibility for her actions. The trial court placed particular emphasis on the power struggle between Killpack and Cassandra which involved denial of food and other privileges, a torturous week of therapy at a clinic ... and a final confrontation where Killpack somehow forced [Cassandra] to ingest four quarts of water or more. In opining on these events, the trial court stated that it greatly fear[ed] that [Cassandra] suffered far more than we will ever understand. ¶ 61 In light of the careful consideration by the sentencing court of all mitigating and aggravating factors and its clear articulation of the reasons for its decision, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying Killpack's request for probation.