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: KATHY BRADLEY Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JESSICA A. MEEK Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRANDON RUTHERFORD, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0705-CR-241

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John R. Barney Jr., Senior Judge Cause No. 49F09-0606-FD-113529

December 26, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Brandon Rutherford was convicted of class D felony theft.1 Specifically, he was found in possession of a stolen Honda scooter. The trial court sentenced him to one and onehalf years, with six months executed on home detention and one year on probation. He appeals his sentence. We affirm. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or the reasonable probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. A trial court may abuse its discretion in the following ways: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons not supported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91. Rutherford notes that the trial court imposed the sentence recommended by the State, except that it ordered six months of the sentence to be served on home detention instead of ordering probation for the entire term. He contends that "the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to set forth a detailed recitation of its reasons for the sentence and considered factors that were improper as a matter of law." Appellant's Br. at 4. To provide meaningful appellate review, the trial court is required to provide a sentencing statement that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of its reasons for imposing

1

Ind. Code

Download Brandon Rutherford v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law