Court Opinion

ID: 9524187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:50:31.197239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:59.586714
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s resolution of the restitution issue; however, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis.
*550I acknowledge James’ difficult childhood, psychological diagnoses, and his plea of guilty and expression of remorse. For those reasons, I concur with the majority that maximum and consecutive sentences totaling twenty-eight years are inappropriate. I further concur with the majority that concurrent sentences for his crimes would be appropriate. However, I believe James’ character as reflected by his criminal history warrants some enhancement of his sentence. The majority’s description of James’ character as “troubling” is, in my estimation, an understatement. His criminal history began when he was nine years old. From that time until he was sentenced in these cases, his family placed him in numerous treatment programs, from nearly all of which he was discharged unsuccessfully. Court-ordered rehabilitative treatment has also been unsuccessful. He has been using alcohol and drugs regularly since he was thirteen or fourteen years old. Two weeks after his release to home detention during the pendency of these charges, James was again consuming alcohol, and in an effort not to be caught, cut off his home detention ankle bracelet and fled. While in jail, he was written up for consuming sleeping pills.
With regard to these offenses, James committed two burglaries and a theft in five months, followed by escaping from home detention. He broke into two businesses and not only stole property from those businesses but also vandalized them. He stole a woman’s purse from hér car and immediately used the cash he found in the purse to buy marijuana. Then, in conjunction with his sister, he used the credit cards he found in the purse to buy over $1,000 in merchandise.
The majority notes “the importance of deferring to the trial court’s sentencing discretion.” Op. at -; see Losch v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind.2005). However, it does not appear that the majority decision reflects any deference to the trial court. Our supreme court has held that the fact of multiple crimes constitutes a valid aggravating circumstance that a trial court may consider in imposing consecutive or enhanced sentences. Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116, 126 (Ind. Ct.App.2006) (citing O’Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 952 (Ind.2001)). Here, James may be young and his offenses may have been non-violent, but he nonetheless committed a number of serious offenses in a short period of time, extending an already-lengthy criminal history. He did not choose to benefit from the conditional release granted to him while these charges were pending, choosing instead to violate the terms of his release by drinking and then escaping from home detention in an attempt to avoid the consequences of that behavior. Like the majority, I am troubled by the waiver into adult court of a child who committed only nonviolent offenses, but Appellate Rule 7(B) review is not the avenue to rectify such a situation. Under these circumstances, I believe enhanced sentences were an appropriate exercise of the trial court’s discretion. At the very least, I would affirm the enhanced sentences imposed by the trial court for each of James’ burglary convictions, while agreeing with the majority that the sentences should be served concurrently.