Court Opinion

ID: 9860347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:18:50.058519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:13.081495
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
When this Court reviewed the initial sentencing order in this case, we noted that Judge Vaughn expressly found "that there are no mitigating cireumstances," but we discovered that the record contained evidence of significant mitigating circumstances not acknowledged or discussed by Judge Vaughn, leading us to conclude that such evidence was either erroneously overlooked or not properly considered. Scheckel v. State (1993), Ind., 620 N.E.2d 681, 686. Accordingly, we remanded for "reconsideration of the sentence." Id. Our opinion did not demand that the trial judge give those mitigating circumstances sufficient weight to overcome the aggravating cireumstances. We required only that the trial judge give consideration to such evidence and that the new sentencing order reflect that fact.
Judge Boles, as successor to the original trial judge, has complied with our instructions. His sentencing order expressly reflects his individualized recognition and consideration of each of the alleged mitigating cireumstances and his conclusion that they did not warrant a reduction in sentence. Clearly, his order reconsidering the sentence demonstrates that the mitigating circumstances have not been overlooked but were carefully considered. I would therefore affirm his sentencing order.