Court Opinion

ID: 9742263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:09:27.929106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.241461
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Pursuant to the sentencing statute setting forth criteria for sentencing, the sentencing judge is required to go beyond the quantum of grossness of the offense committed, into the separate realm of the prior criminal record, character, and condition of the individual defendant. Ind.Code § 35-50-1A-7. The sentencing judge did so here, finding that appellant Bish had only a prior juvenile record with no prior criminal activity, that Botchuck had a history of *622criminal activity, and that Conrad had a history of criminal activity and was a parolee. With regard to the confinement and sex offenses, the judge increased the sentences to the maximum limit and ordered them served consecutively as to each offender, thereby treating all three alike. In light of the absence of criminal activity in appellant Bish’s past, and the fact that all offenses occurred within a period of but four hours, it is manifestly unreasonable to permit aggravating circumstances to enhance his sentences for these offenses to the point where they to no degree reflect this lack of past criminal activity.
Appellant Botchuck was ordered to serve the maximum term on all convictions including the one for the crime of robbery, and all sentences were ordered served consecutively. It is undisputed that he did not take or encourage the actual taking of the victim’s property. Under such circumstance, and those including the decision to have all his sentences run consecutively and the shortness of time of the entire criminal episode, it was manifestly unreasonable to permit aggravating circumstances to enhance his sentence for the robbery to the point where it would to no degree reflect his more limited participation in commission of that crime. Since there is no consensus on this Court that the sentences be revised to these ends I find no occasion to make a specific recommendation.
As to appellant Conrad, I find nothing manifestly unreasonable about the sentences he received.
In all other matters I concur in the opinion of the Court.
PRENTICE, J., concurs.