Court Opinion

ID: 9742447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:14:07.380584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:45.287012
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Judge
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s revision of Westlake’s sentence. Westlake argues that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), and the majority holds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate based upon her character. I conclude that the trial court’s sentence is not inappropriate.
While I acknowledge Westlake’s mental illness, progress in treatment, and success in the pre-conviction release program, I conclude that the majority’s significant reduction in her sentence fails to give due consideration to the trial court’s decision. The trial court’s sentencing order indicates that it found Westlake’s criminal history, serious substance abuse problem, and the fact that she was “deeply involved in dealing cocaine” as aggravators. Appellant’s App. p. 82. The trial court found undue hardship on her children, her education, and her bipolar disorder as mitigators.
The record reveals that the State charged Westlake with four counts of dealing in cocaine as class A felonies, one count of possession of cocaine as a class A felony, one count of possession of marijuana as a class D felony, and two counts of neglect of a dependent as class C felonies. Westlake pled guilty to an amended charge of dealing in cocaine as a class B felony and one count of neglect of a dependent as a class C felony. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed the other charges. Westlake has two prior convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as class A misdemeanors and a conviction for leaving the scene of an accident as a class B misdemeanor. She was on probation at the time of the instant offenses. The PSI indicates that Westlake began using drugs and alcohol at the age of twelve, and she was heavily involved with methamphetamine at the time of her arrest. Westlake was dealing cocaine at the time that her two children lived with her, and her six-year-old son’s hair sample tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine. West-lake is an educated woman and a former physician recruiter.
The majority places significant emphasis on Westlake’s mental illness and progress during her pre-conviction release program. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a guilty but mentally ill defendant “is not automatically entitled to any particular credit or deduction from his otherwise aggravated sentence” simply by virtue of being mentally ill. Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind.1998) (relying on Ind. Code § 35-36-2-5(a), which provides that a defendant found to be guilty but mentally ill is to be sentenced “in the same manner as a defendant found guilty of the offense”). In sentencing a guilty but mentally ill defendant “ ‘in the same manner’ as any other guilty defendant, trial courts should at a minimum carefully consider on the record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to any evidence of mental illness, even though there is no obligation to give the evidence the same weight the defendant does.” Id. Several factors bear on the weight, if any, that should be given to mental illness in sentencing. Id. These factors include: (1) the extent of the defendant’s inability to control his or her behavior due to the disorder or impairment; (2) *774overall limitations on functioning; (3) the duration of the mental illness; and (4) the extent of any nexus between the disorder or impairment and the commission of the crime. Id.
Although Westlake was diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder during her pre-conviction release program, there was no evidence presented at sentencing regarding any of the Weeks factors. While the trial court considered Westlake’s mental illness and progress, it legitimately placed more emphasis on Westlake’s serious substance abuse and drug dealing. Transcript at 33 (“[W]hat tips me over is the serious substance abuse and the extent of her drug dealing.”). After considering Westlake’s criminal history, the extent of her substance abuse problem and drug dealing, her education, undue hardship on her children resulting from her incarceration, and her bipolar disorder, the trial court imposed consecutive advisory sentences.
I cannot agree with the majority’s significant reduction to almost minimum, concurrent sentences with two years suspended and the executed portion of Westlake’s sentence served in community corrections. Rather, I believe that the trial court took Westlake’s mental illness, progress in treatment, and success in the pre-conviction release program into account by imposing the advisory sentences. At most, I could recommend concurrent rather than consecutive sentences for her offenses.
After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, I cannot say that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. I would affirm Westlake’s sentence or, at most, order concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. Consequently, I dissent from the majority’s significant reduction of her sentence.