Court Opinion

ID: 9717941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:13:17.260283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:56.195026
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant had just turned eighteen when he shot and killed his parents. He had only recently been placed by them in his own *974apartment and had returned to the home to rob and kill them. After the killing he did not take anything. These killings were the product of an irrational anger. As demonstrated by the presentence report, appellant had a long history of psychiatric problems and a pattern of violent behavior. After the killings, which had taken place before a witness, he returned to his apartment and remained there for a short while until he was arrested. He cooperated with the police, providing a full confession. The trial court did not consider these mitigating cireum-stances, though they are clearly supported by the record. The trial court focused solely upon aggravating cireumstances, and concluded that the sole mitigating circumstance was "the jury did not make the recommendation that Mr. Holmes receive the death penalty." This does not satisfy the specificity requirement for sentencing orders. Page v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021. In my view, maximum consecutive sentences here are manifestly unreasonable. Certainly, consecutive sentences, which reflect a separate penalty for each life taken, are manifestly appropriate. However, maximizing each sentence is not. I would reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to reduce each sentence to fifty years, and affirm the sentences in all other respects.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs.