Opinion ID: 2012481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider Mitigating Circumstances

Text: The trial court found Warlick's remorse as the sole mitigating circumstance. Warlick contends that the trial court should have also found as mitigating circumstances his lack of criminal history and acceptance of responsibility by surrendering to police. The allegation that the trial court failed to find mitigating circumstances requires Warlick to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. See Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999). We review the trial court's finding of mitigating circumstances for an abuse of discretion. See Penick v. State, 659 N.E.2d 484, 488 (Ind.1995). As to the first of these, Warlick points to the following comment by the State: The only possible mitigator that I could see here is that he has a lack of significant criminal history. Not a lack of any criminal history but a lack of a significant criminal history.... [2] One of Warlick's attorneys later argued as mitigation that Warlick's crimes have all been misdemeanors prior to this time and they've all involved his former wife, Annie Warlick. The only place that's not 100% true is that he had a reckless driving and he had a resisting arrest involving an assault back in Tennessee when he was roughly twenty-nine years old. Nevertheless, the trial court rejected this proffered mitigating circumstance, observing that Warlick's criminal history certainly is significant and I suppose as a matter of hindsight it's what led up to where we are today, a series of domestic batteries, invasion of privacies, all involving domestic type of matters. This was not an abuse of discretion. [3] Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to find Warlick's surrender to the police to be mitigating. Warlick shot Annie in plain view of her brother who was sitting a few feet away. Had he not surrendered, he would no doubt have been apprehended in short order. Compare Battles v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1237 (Ind.1997) ([D]efendant's eventual capture and arrest were nigh unavoidable, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that his voluntary statement to police was a mitigating circumstance entitled to any significant weight.) with Brewer v. State, 646 N.E.2d 1382, 1386 (Ind.1995) ([A]ppellant had clearly succeeded in escaping responsibility for the heinous crime that he had committed nearly fifteen years before. His surrender and subsequent confession provided a major benefit to the community; that benefit to society should be reflected in the sentence imposed.).