Court Opinion

ID: 9505698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:14:46.494827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:42.259004
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority in Parts I and II, but dissent from the majority’s determination in Part III that Carter’s sixty year sentence for murder is manifestly unreasonable.
Under our Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court “will not revise a sentence authorized by statute except where such sentence is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 17(B). We have emphasized that this review is very deferential to the trial court: “ ‘[T]he issue is not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.’ ” Bunch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind.1998) (quoting Prowell v. State, 687 N.E.2d 563, 568 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 104, 142 L.Ed.2d 83 (1998)). See also Thacker v. State, 709 N.E.2d 3, 10 (Ind.1999); Brown v. State, 698 N.E.2d 779, 783-84 (Ind.1998); Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind.1998).
Because I do not find the sentence ordered by the trial judge to be clearly, plainly, and obviously unreasonable, I cannot agree to revise it and would affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.