Opinion ID: 852655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remaining Aggravators

Text: The remaining aggravators found by the judge are the age of the victims and Haas' criminal record. As we explained above, although virtually certain, the age of the victims was never properly found and cannot serve as a valid aggravator. Haas challenges the use of his criminal record on the grounds that because it consists solely of juvenile adjudications that were not subject to the same procedural safeguards as an adult criminal trial, it is not included in the exception outlined in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), for prior criminal convictions. We recently addressed an identical challenge in Ryle v. State, 842 N.E.2d 320, 321-23 (Ind.2005), holding that juvenile adjudications were included in the Apprendi exception and could be considered by a court in sentencing a defendant despite there being no jury trial in juvenile adjudications. Therefore, the trial court could consider Haas' juvenile record. Haas also challenges the weight assigned to this aggravator. Haas accurately observes that in assigning weight to a defendant's criminal history, a trial court must consider the chronological remoteness of the convictions as well as the gravity and nature of the prior crime. As we ourselves have recently emphasized sentencing judges [and] appellate judges [may not fail to think] about what weight to give a history of prior convictions. Morgan, 829 N.E.2d at 15. A sentencing court must assess a defendant's criminal history with the recognition that the weight assigned to that history `varies based on the gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.' Id. (quoting Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 929 n. 4 (Ind.1999)). Haas' juvenile history consists of two adjudications for theft, one for the conversion of a relative's car, one for the theft and unauthorized use of a relative's car, and one for battery. (Appellant's App. at 320-21.) The charges related to the motor vehicles were apparently minor in nature, and in regards to the unauthorized use charge, the theft count may never have been adjudicated on the merits. (T.R. 23-24, 28, 80-82; Br. Appellant 12.) This does not excuse Haas' behavior, of course, but it does indicate that these incidents are of modest weight. The two remaining thefts suggest a pattern of behavior that directly relates to the decision to enter into the conspiracy to commit burglary, though these seem to have been petty thefts. (T.R. 82-83.) Collectively, these appear to warrant some weight as aggravators.