Opinion ID: 2145030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court Bias

Text: The defendant contends that comments during sentencing illustrate the trial court's personal bias against Hollins to such an extent that he was denied his due process right to be sentenced by an impartial magistrate. Brief of Appellant at 18. We disagree. In the case at bar, the defendant was convicted of murdering his friend, Oscar Barton, in the course of a robbery. Repeated testimony was heard about how kind and gentle Barton was, including testimony about how he would loan money to people who would not repay him, yet he would never get angry. The court also heard testimony that a pillow was placed over Barton and he was shot multiple times with a semi-automatic,.380 gun and left to bleed to death. Numerous witnesses testified that the defendant possessed the same type of gun, having stolen it earlier. Numerous witnesses also placed the defendant at Barton's apartment immediately before and after he was killed. A friend of the defendant's testified that the defendant admitted flat out that he just shot Oscar Barton and that he had stolen four hundred dollars, a gold watch and ... some gold necklaces because the defendant felt [Barton] owed it to him. Record at 285. Following the verdict, the trial court was presented with a pre-sentence report and, when asked whether he had reviewed the pre-sentence report, the defendant responded that he had, stating we reviewed the background information in this report and believe that it is factually accurate. Record at 697. This report contained the following information: The defendant was seventeen at the time he committed the murder and had a juvenile record beginning four years earlier. He described his grades as mostly Bs, Cs, and Ds, but research proved that he obtained mostly Ds and Fs. The reports stated that, The defendant shared freely and seemed very proud that he had sold drugs while living in St. Louis. He indicated that he had sold heroin, crack and pot on a daily basis. Record at 111. At the sentencing hearing, when asked by his attorney if he had any specific recommendation to the judge, the defendant responded, If he feels that I deserve sixty years, that's what he should give. Record at 707. The defendant alleges error in the comments made by the trial court during sentencing: I've done two-hundred and some murder trials.... I've done juvenile for twenty-one years, tried to set up a place for young kids that don't have anything at home or have crap at home .... [but] you came from a good family and you're cold. You are a cold killer. I've seen them come and go. I've seen them from fourteen to seventy that I've sent ... to prison for murder and you are a cold murderer. You have absolutely no remorse. You will kill again, given the opportunity, but you're going to have a long, long, long time to think about it, or you're going to have to do your drug dealing or your killing in prison. Record at 715-16. A trial judge's comments necessarily reflect the evidence he or she hears during the trial. Trial judges may consider the conduct and attitude of the defendant when imposing sentence. In fact, most of the above comments stem from the considerations mandated by Indiana's sentencing statute. [3] In view of the nature and circumstances of the defendant and the crimes, the trial judge's comments on the coldness of the defendant, his lack of remorse, and his proclivity to kill again were entirely consistent with the considerations required to be taken into account by the judge in determining the defendant's sentence. The comments do not reflect disqualifying personal bias or prejudice against the defendant.