Opinion ID: 853704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Were the Aggravators Proper?

Text: Sensback argues that the court improperly found as an aggravating circumstance that Sensback was in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment best provided by a penal facility because the court did not state reasons for its finding. In its sentencing order, the court found there was [n]o other appropriate facility ... available; [that] prior to her statements to the Probation Director, the defendant showed no remorse; [and that] after the murder, the defendant used Mrs. Hunsicker's charge card and checks to purchase personal items for her [sic] and the co-defendant. (R. at 115-16.) At the sentencing hearing, the court said the defendant committed this atrocious crime and I think that's the only place for her. (R. at 191). To enhance a defendant's sentence based upon this aggravating factor, the court must provide a specific or individualized statement of the reason why this defendant was in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that could best be provided by a period of incarceration in a penal facility in excess of the presumptive sentence. Battles, 688 N.E.2d at 1236. The statement cannot be simply a perfunctory recitation of the statutory wording. Id. The court must provide a reasoned statement why this defendant is in need of this kind of treatment for a period longer than the presumptive sentence. Id. The words of the sentencing judge indicate that the court thought that alternative sentencing facilities were an inadequate response to the brutality of the crime. Such a conclusion seems more aimed at location than duration, but we find ourselves unable to call it an abuse of discretion.