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: JOHN PINNOW Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana IAN MCLEAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jul 16 2010, 9:29 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CLERK

CHARLES ORR, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 28A01-0912-CR-603

APPEAL FROM THE GREENE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Dena A. Martin, Judge Cause No. 28D01-0902-FB-86

July 16, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Charles Orr appeals his sentence for burglary as a Class B felony. We affirm. Issue Orr raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sixteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Facts On October 22, 2008, Orr and an accomplice burglarized two churches in Greene County. They took several items, including a handgun and cameras. The State charged Orr with two counts of burglary as Class B felonies and two counts of theft as Class D felonies. On March 22, 2009, Orr became violent while in the jail visitation area. He was evaluated at the Hamilton Center, and in-patient mental health services were recommended. Orr was transferred to the Department of Correction, which had the facilities to care for Orr. Orr was evaluated by two doctors, who found that he was competent to stand trial. Dr. Matt Oliver diagnosed Orr with polysubstance dependence, major depressive disorder, and adult anti-social behavior. Dr. Jerry Neff diagnosed Orr with major depressive disorder, impulse control disorder NOS, and polysubstance dependence. Orr pled guilty to one count of burglary as a Class B felony, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found the following aggravating factors: (1) Orrs extensive criminal history; (2) numerous probation violations; (3) the fact that he "is in need of correctional and rehabilitative 2

treatment that can best be provided by commitment" to a penal facility; and (4) the fact that Orr had been "provided rehabilitative services numerous times while on probation but continues to commit additional criminal offenses." App. pp. 63-64. The trial court found Orrs guilty plea, ongoing mental health issues, and his agreement to name his accomplice as mitigating factors. The trial court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Orr to sixteen years in the Department of Correction. Analysis Orr argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. When considering whether a sentence is inappropriate, we need not be "extremely" deferential to a trial courts sentencing decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Still, we must give due consideration to that decision. Id. We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of Rule 7(B) review "should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ,,correct result in each case." 3

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We "should focus on the forest

Download Charles Orr v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law