Court Opinion

ID: 9743779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:42:54.374425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.513554
License: Public Domain

*1020KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully coneur in the decision of the majority with regard to all issues exeept that involving sentencing. From that deci-gion, I respectfully dissent.
Our jurisprudence regarding appellate sentence review continues to evolve. As it does, we struggle with the appropriate balance between the deference due the trial court's discretion in its sentencing decision and our constitutional mandate under Article VII, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution to review and revise sentences. Here, for me, the balance tips on the side of review and revision. I believe that a forty-eight year sentence for a non-violent erime given to a defendant whose criminal history is not extensive and in the last twenty-two years includes only three misdemean- or battery convictions is "manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." I would vacate the sentence and remand with instructions to enter a sentence for twenty-four years.