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: KEVIN WILD Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Mar 24 2008, 9:44 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General Of Indiana JUSTIN F. ROEBEL Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-0708-CR-742

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John Boyce, Judge Pro Tempore Cause No.49G01-0706-FC-98666

March 24, 2008

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issues Following a guilty plea, Daniel Carmichael appeals his six-year sentence for child exploitation, a Class C felony. Carmichael raises two issues, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Carmichael and whether Carmichael's sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History At Carmichael's guilty plea hearing, he admitted that: On May 29th of 2007, Detective Kurt Spidey of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was contacted by patrolman Eric Kenny regarding a child pornography investigation. Detective Spidey became aware that [T.H.] was in a relationship with a man named Daniel Carmichael . . . here in Indianapolis. Detective Spidey learned that a laptop computer had been purchased in Kentucky by Mr. Carmichael and [T.H.] and during the time of ownership of the laptop Mr. Carmichael had downloaded images that were lacking in artistic and scientific value, images specifically of young prepubescent females in different states of nudity and undressed, and Detective Spidey interviewed Mr. Carmichael, and Mr. Carmichael confirmed that indeed that it was his laptop, it was purchased brand new. . . . [A]ll photographs were contained in a file marked Dan's file or Dan Carmichael's file. He downloaded these images and videos from a website and stored them on his computer for sexual gratification purposes. Transcript at 12-13. On June 5, 2007, the State charged Carmichael with child exploitation,1 a Class C felony, and possession of child pornography, a Class D felony. On July 3, 2007,

It appears that Carmichael was charged under the portion of the child exploitation statute that criminalizes the act of "mak[ing] available to another person a computer, knowing that the computer's fixed drive or peripheral device contains matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age." Ind. Code

Download Daniel Carmichael v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law