Opinion ID: 853172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Revision of Sentence

Text: As neither of the charged aggravators support the sentence of life without parole, we have three options: (1) remand the matter to the trial court for clarification or a new sentencing determination, (2) affirm the sentence if the error is harmless, or (3) independently reweigh the proper aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 957 (Ind. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1077,116 S.Ct. 783, 133 L.Ed.2d 734 (1996). We elect appellate reweighing. Without the presence of any statutory aggravator, a life without parole sentence is impermissible. Therefore, we will impose a term of years for Nicholson's convictions of murder, robbery as a class B felony and criminal confinement as a class D felony. [12] The presumptive sentence for murder is fifty-five years, with a possible enhancement of up to ten years. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-3(a) (West 1998). For class B felonies, the presumptive term is ten years, with a possible enhancement of ten additional years. Id. § 35-50-2-5. And for class D felonies, the presumptive term is one and a half years, with a possible enhancement of one and a half years. Id. § 35-50-2-7. We conclude consecutive sentences and full enhancements on each count are warranted. In his pre-sentence memorandum, Nicholson profered four mitigating circumstances: (1) remorse, (2) a difficult childhood, (3) the inability to conform his conduct due to substantial impairment from alcohol and drug intoxication, and (4) the potential to be a productive member of society within a structured, controlled environment. [13] The trial court assigned little to no weight to each of these proffered mitigators. We agree. At the sentencing hearing, Nicholson made a statement to the court expressing remorse. Although he remarked that he was deeply and genuinely sorry for the death of Mrs. Heitger, he criticized the proceedings for not demonstrating his true intentions and acts. (R. at 1635-36.) He continued by stating, I never wanted to be involved in any way in the death of Mrs. Heitger. And I never intended that result. (R. at 1636.) Nicholson's equivocal statement fell short of a full acceptance of responsibility. See Bonds v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1238, 1243 (Ind.1999). We assign low weight to this mitigator. The pre-sentence memorandum also listed Nicholson's dysfunctional, chaotic and [u]nstable home life growing up as a mitigator. (R. at 1595.) Among other things, the report described Nicholson's surprise encounter with a burglar at the age of five, a grade-altering scam when Nicholson was in high school, and his failures at sports. But Nicholson himself seems to contradict that his home life was a mitigating circumstance. In his address to the court, he said: I have a wonderful and loving family. I never wanted for anything material.... [M]ost people would look and see a wonderful opportunity and there was a wonderful and great extreme chance and opportunity for me. The choices that I made for whatever reasons ... are the choices that I was free to make and to have to live with. (R. at 1634.) We also note that Nicholson was thirty-six years old at the time of these crimes. We assign low weight to this mitigator. As for intoxication as a mitigator, the record demonstrates that Nicholson's act of restraining the victim took time and required a significant degree of physical dexterity. ( See R. at 833.) We think this mitigator was not proven. And as for Nicholson's final mitigator, that he would benefit from a controlled environment, it proves, if anything, that the structured life of prison will be most beneficial to Nicholson's productivity. On the other hand, ample evidence supports numerous aggravators of some considerable weight. First, the victim was a seventy-eight-year-old widow who lived alone and had no family. See Ind.Code Ann. § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(5) (West 1998). Nicholson took advantage of these circumstances in perpetrating his crimes. Second, Nicholson has a lengthy history of criminal and delinquent activity. See id. § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(2). His prior encounters with the law have not dissuaded him from further criminal acts. Finally, the nature and circumstances of the crimes committedthe elaborate binding and gagging of an elderly widowdemonstrate a high level of criminal purposefulness and moral culpability. See id. § 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2). We find the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances by a sufficient magnitude that maximum and consecutive sentences should be imposed.