Court Opinion

ID: 9745723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:29:03.048547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:04.303480
License: Public Domain

BAILEY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion in all respects except for the affirmance of Martin's sentence. I believe that Martin's maximum eight-year sentence for Aggravated Battery was "inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender," see Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), and should therefore be revised. As the majority notes, the starting point for our determination of the appropriateness of Martin's sentence is the recognition that pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-2-6(a), the presumptive sentence for the crime he committed was four years. See Winbush v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1219, 1226 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. While an enhanced sentence may be appropriate in light of the nature of the offense when compared with other offenses within its category, and in view of the offender's category, the maximum sentence enhancement should be reserved for the very worst offenses and offenders. See id.
While Martin's battery of Walker was undoubtedly severe, and the ultimate result tragic, Martin was, after all convicted of battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Given the facts, as noted by the trial court at sentencing, that Walker instigated the fight, and that Martin acted in the defense of his father and under strong provocation, I cannot conclude that Martin's offense amounted to the worst example of a battery resulting in serious bodily injury.
Moreover, while Martin has a history of run-ins with the law, his four convictions consisted of theft, minor possession of alcohol, illegal consumption, and littering. A history of criminal activity is certainly evi-denee of poor character. In my view, however, the nature of these offenses does not place Martin in the category of the very worst of offenders.
For these reasons, I believe that Martin's maximum eight-year sentence was in*1016appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, and I would reduce his sentence to six years. In all other respects I concur with the opinion of my colleagues.