Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LARRY DON GALLAWAY Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BENNIE A. WILLIAMS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 27A02-0704-CR-344

APPEAL FROM THE GRANT SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jeffrey Todd, Judge Cause No. 27D01-0611-FB-230

December 27, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

Bennie A. Williams appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to battery1 as a Class C felony, strangulation2 as a Class D felony, and intimidation3 as a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, he raises two issues, which we restate as: I. II. Whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion; and Whether his sentence was inappropriate.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Williams pled guilty to battery resulting in serious bodily injury, strangulation, and intimidation. The trial court found that Williams's extensive and violent criminal history was an aggravating factor that strongly outweighed his remorse as a mitigating factor. The trial court sentenced Williams to eight years, two suspended, with two years probation for the battery, three years for the strangulation, and one year for the intimidation with all terms of imprisonment running concurrently. appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION A sentencing decision is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Edwards v. State, 842 N.E.2d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citing Jones v. State, 790 N.E.2d 536, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). Whenever a sentencing range is available to a trial court, this court may review the trial court's exercise of its discretion. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
1

Williams now

See IC 35-45-2-1. See IC 35-42-2-9. See IC 35-42-2-1.

2

3

2

Our Supreme Court detailed how appellate courts should review sentencing: 1. The trial court must enter a statement including reasonably detailed reasons or circumstances for imposing a particular sentence. The reasons given, and the omission of reasons arguably supported by the record, are reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. The relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found or those which should have been found is not subject to review for abuse. Appellate review of the merits of a sentence may be sought on the grounds outlined in Appellate Rule 7(B).

2.

3.

4.

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (2007), reh'g granted on other grounds. We, thus, review accordingly. I. Mitigating Factors

Williams contends first that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to acknowledge his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Our Supreme Court ruled on rehearing in Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218, 220-221 (Ind. 2007), that a defendant may raise the issue of his guilty plea as a mitigating factor for the first time on appeal, which Williams does here. However, the trial court does not necessarily abuse its discretion for failing to list it as a mitigating factor. Id. at 221. Instead, the mitigating factor must be significant and supported by the record, and its significance "varies from case to case." Id. at 221. For example, a guilty plea is not significant when the defendant receives a substantial benefit from it and there is considerable evidence of guilt. Id. In this case, Williams was charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the State dropped his most serious offense

Download Bennie A. Williams v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law