Opinion ID: 853104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances

Text: Corcoran points to the following portion of the revised sentencing order to support his argument that the trial court again improperly considered non-statutory aggravators: The trial Court, in balancing the proved aggravators and mitigators, emphasizes to the Supreme Court that it only relied upon those proven statutory aggravators. The trial Court's remarks at the sentencing hearing, and the language in the original sentencing order explain why such high weight was given to the statutory aggravator of multiple murder, and further support the trial Court's personal conclusion that the sentence is appropriate punishment for this offender and these crimes. (Supp. R. at 48-49.) He also argues that the revised sentencing order is deficient because the trial court found as proven only four of the ten mitigating circumstances he put forward. (Appellant's Br. at 8-9.) In Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1262 (Ind.1995), after remand, 659 N.E.2d 480 (Ind.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 933, 117 S.Ct. 307, 136 L.Ed.2d 224 (1996), we held that a court must offer a detailed explanation of the factors and the weighing process that lead to a death sentence. For guidance, we set out the following steps: The trial court's statement of reasons (i) must identify each mitigating and aggravating circumstance found, (ii) must include the specific facts and reasons which lead the court to find the existence of each such circumstance, (iii) must articulate that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been evaluated and balanced in determination of the sentence, and (iv) must set forth the trial court's personal conclusion that the sentence is appropriate punishment for this offender and this crime. Id. (citations omitted). When imposing a death sentence, a trial court must limit its consideration of aggravating circumstances to those listed in the death penalty statute, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-9(b) (West 2000). Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 500 (Ind.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 905, 151 L.Ed.2d 874 (2002). To satisfy the specificity requirement of Harrison, the sentencing order must explicitly indicate which mitigating circumstances the trial court found ... [and] explain the specific facts and reasons that led the court to find the existence of whatever mitigating circumstances it did find. Holsinger v. State, 750 N.E.2d 354, 362 (Ind.2001). We require such specificity in a sentencing order or statement of reasons for imposing a sentence to insure the trial court considered only proper matters when imposing sentence, thus safeguarding against the imposition of sentences which are arbitrary or capricious, and to enable the appellate court to determine the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Harrison, 644 N.E.2d at 1262 (citation omitted). When we remand criminal cases to trial courts for new sentencing orders, a trial court's responsibility is to produce a new sentencing order that responds to the concerns this Court has raised. O'Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 952-53 (Ind. 2001). Our sole concern here was the possibility that the trial court relied on non-statutory aggravators, so it fulfilled its responsibility by issuing a new sentencing order without taking further action. Id. at 953. We are now satisfied that the trial court has relied on only aggravators listed in Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9(b). In response to our remand, the trial court stated, [I]n balancing the proved aggravators and mitigators, [the trial court] emphasizes to the Supreme Court that it only relied upon those proven statutory aggravators. (Supp. R. at 48-49.) There is no lack of clarity in this statement and no plausible reason to believe it untrue. As for the trial court's consideration of mitigating circumstances, Corcoran proffered ten mitigators, but the court found that he proved only four. (Supp. R. at 47-48.) The Court then stated: The Court finds that the Defendant has proved the mitigating circumstance that he was under the influence of a mental or emotional disturbance at the time the murders were committed on July 26, 1997. The Court gives this mitigating circumstance medium weight. Dr. Engum's opinion at trial was consistent with the opinions of the Court appointed experts that the Defendant suffered from a personality disorder, either paranoid personality disorder, or schizotypal personality disorder. The Defendant requests the Court to consider as a further mitigating circumstance the fact he cooperated fully with investigating authorities, reducing the potential for additional harm and furthering the State's case against himself. The Court does believe this to be a mitigating circumstance. The Defendant did in fact cooperate with the police and gave a videotaped confession of his involvement. At no time did he deceive or hinder the investigative process by making false or misleading statements. However, as he was the only adult left alive in the house, it would not have been difficult for the police to investigate and determine who was responsible. The Court therefore assigns this mitigator a low weight. The Defendant's eighth mitigator is his lack of a significant criminal history. The Defendant has a 1993 conviction for Criminal Mischief as a Class A Misdemeanor. He has no juvenile adjudications. The Court assigns this mitigator a low weight. Finally, the Defendant's remorse is advanced as a mitigating circumstance. The Defendant has indicated such remorse in a letter to the Court. The Court assigns this mitigator a low weight. (Supp. R. at 47-48.) Corcoran's argument that the trial court did not consider six of the proffered mitigating circumstances is without merit. As the mitigating circumstances were not the focus of our concern, we are not surprised that the trial court's second order analyzed only those aggravating and mitigating circumstances it found pertinent to the task on remand. The trial judge had in fact analyzed Corcoran's proffered mitigators in the course of its original sentencing. Our review of the record also persuades us that the trial court properly rejected the remaining factors in the original sentencing order. (R. at 2574-78.) Corcoran claimed first that his mental disease affected his capacity to appreciate or conform his conduct. (R. at 2574.) As we discuss in greater detail below, the trial court did not err in rejecting it. In a related vein, Corcoran also asked the court to consider the fact that he shielded his young niece from the bloodshed as a mitigator. (R. at 2575.) But this fact cuts both ways. His actions demonstrate a keen awareness of the events that were to follow, and suggest to us that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was not inhibited. Third, Corcoran argues that his mental disease prevented him from competently assisting in his defense, stemming primarily from his refusal of favorable plea recommendations offered by the State. (R. at 2574, 2909.) The State's pleas would have kept Corcoran in jail for life, but Corcoran rejected each. He chose instead to exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial, therefore creating the potential for a lesser sentence, a favorable jury recommendation, or an outright acquittal. Corcoran's choice will not act simultaneously as a mitigator for his benefit. The remaining three factors are also without merit. Corcoran was twenty-two at the time of the murders, and offered his age as a mitigator. (R. at 2575, 2915.) Although chronological age is not the end of the inquiry for young adults, considering both the seriousness of this crime and the fact that Corcoran is well past the age of sixteen where the law requires special treatment, we find no abuse of discretion. See Monegan v. State, 756 N.E.2d 499, 504-05 (Ind.2001). The fifth rejected factor was Corcoran's good behavior in jail prior to sentencing. (R. at 2575.) We agree with the trial court that this is expected of persons who are incarcerated. See Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 448-49 (Ind.2000). Even if it is an appropriate mitigator, its weight is modest and we find no abuse of discretion here either. Finally, Corcoran asserted that his admission of guilt through all phases of the legal process should be a mitigating circumstance. (R. at 2575.) Of course, Corcoran did not admit his guilt in the sense that one does in pleading guilty. Corcoran demanded a jury trial and subjected the victims' families and loved ones to a trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find this mitigator. In accordance with our guidance in Harrison and Holsinger, the trial court explicitly identified the proven mitigating circumstances and listed the specific facts and reasons that led the court to find their existence. The trial court fulfilled its resentencing duties.