Opinion ID: 2251424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Presumptive Sentence

Text: Hansford argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him to the presumptive sentences for the burglary and robbery convictions. He maintains that the imposition of presumptive sentences was excessive and manifestly unreasonable because the trial court failed to consider his age, lack of a criminal record, and his past exemplary behavior. The trial judge need not state a basis for imposing the presumptive sentence. This Court assumes that the trial judge considered the factors listed in Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7(a) when he or she imposes the presumptive term. Warner v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 355. We will not adjust a sentence which is authorized by the statute unless it is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Indiana Rules for Appellate Review of Sentences 2. A sentence is not manifestly unreasonable if any reasonable person could find the sentence appropriate for the particular offense and the offender. Johnson v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 932. The sentences imposed here correspond to the presumptive sentence under the statute. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (Burns 1979). One factor which the trial court must consider when determining what sentence to impose for a crime is whether the victim of the crime was sixty-five years of age or older. We cannot find the sentences to be manifestly unreasonable when both of the victims were over sixty-five years of age and sustained injuries during the course of the robbery.