Opinion ID: 2163041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant argues that inasmuch as the jury found her guilty but mentally ill, it was improper for the trial court to sentence her to more than the presumptive sentence of forty years for the crime of murder. She questions taking the very facts of the case which most strongly relate to and which clearly only came about because of her mental illness and turn[ing] them into aggravating factors instead of mitigating ones. (Brief of Appellant, p. 82). The trial court listed as aggravating factors the following: (1) it was the most brutal and gruesome homicide the court had personally seen; (2) the Defendant planned to kill her daughter and had a motive of revenge; (3) the victim was young; (4) the Defendant had shown no remorse for her action; (5) the Defendant needed long term commitment to a mental health or penal facility; (6) a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime; and (7) while the Defendant might have had troubles, she had failed to seek help. From these circumstances, the court determined that a sentence of sixty (60) years would be appropriate. However, in view of the mitigating factors that Defendant had no previous record and that the jury had found her to be mentally ill the court was persuaded to impose only a fifty (50) year sentence. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the presumptive sentence for a crime will be increased or decreased because of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Gaunt v. State, (1983) Ind., 457 N.E.2d 211, 216. The sentence here imposed by the court is within the statutory bounds; therefore, we will alter the sentence only if it is manifestly unreasonable. Id.; Bryan v. State, (1982) Ind., 438 N.E.2d 709, 719. A sentence is not manifestly unreasonable unless no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate to the particular offense and offender for which such sentence was imposed. Ind.R.App.Rev.Sen. 2(2). In view of the nature of the offense and the offender, we cannot say that the sentence is manifestly unreasonable.