Court Opinion

ID: 9709969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:58:44.105327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.117713
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
At the time appellant went on this destructive rampage and killed, he was seventeen years old, had no history of criminal conduct, had been an able and willing worker, good student, 4-H club member and church member, and was suffering from a delusional paranoid disorder. These are significant mitigating factors which are clearly supported by the record. In any felony sentencing process, a personal history of this character has a commanding mitigating value, as it indicates a willingness to cooperate with others and some belief in the ethical value of aiding others.
The record of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial judge had given great consideration to Wall's sentence. He "agonized for hours" over the decision, a matter which he had "considered every side." He specifically stated that he had considered the written presentence report, the arguments of counsel, witnesses and exhibits. After having done these things, and in specifically stating his reasoning as is required by law, Henderson v. State (1986), Ind., *895489 N.E.2d 68, the court ultimately concluded:
The aggravating cireumstances outweigh any mitigating cireumstances that exist and warrant the increase of the sentence. The mitigating circumstances urged by defense counsel are more in the form of a final argument than a factual situation that merits mitigation.
This summary rejection of the body of evidence of migitating circumstances is error. It is tantamount to overlooking mitigating circumstances supported by the record. Tunstill v. State (1991), Ind., 568 N.E.2d 539. However, the result of the error in this instance is a manifestly unreasonable sentence. I would remand and order the imposition of the standard forty-year sentence.