Opinion ID: 2027715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Finally, Defendant argues the trial court failed to give proper consideration to mitigating factors, in addition to his age, including: 1) his lack of a prior criminal record; 2) his feelings of remorse; 3) his limited intellectual ability; and 4) his prior psychiatric counselling. A trial court has broad discretion to consider and weigh mitigating circumstances. Cary v. State (1984), Ind. 469 N.E.2d 459. Furthermore, Ind. Code § 35-4.1-4-7 does not require a trial court to consider mitigating factors. Rather, it merely permits it to do so and to determine what may constitute mitigating factors in a particular case. Here, the trial court gave more weight to aggravating factors and also found the Defendant's age to be the only mitigating factor, notwithstanding that the other points Defendant has raised were presented to it. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion, given the circumstances of this case. Cary v. State, supra . Likewise, we do not find the sentences to be manifestly unreasonable. Ind. R.App.Rev.Sen. 2. The judgment is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and SHEPARD, JJ., concur.