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.

FILED
Jan 15 2009, 9:07 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: P. STEPHEN MILLER Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 02A04-0809-CR-531

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Cause No. 02D04-0710-FC-246

January 15, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Gregory Geyer appeals his four-year sentence for Class C felony forgery. We affirm. Issues Geyer raises several issues in this appeal, which we restate as: I. whether he had an opportunity to address any inaccuracies in his pre-sentence investigation report ("PSI"); whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him; and whether his aggregate four-year sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Facts On October 1, 2007, the State charged Geyer with Class C felony forgery and Class D felony receiving stolen property. Geyer pled guilty to Class C felony forgery on May 29, 2008, and the State dismissed the remaining charge. The plea agreement

II.

III.

provided that any executed portion of the sentence could not exceed two years. The probation department prepared and filed a PSI on June 12, 2008. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on June 20, 2008. Geyer indicated to the trial court that he had seen and read the PSI and discussed it with his counsel. Counsel indicated that Geyer took "exception to the being classified as high risk. I tried to explain

2

to him how that works but other than that it's accurate." Tr. pp. 3-4. The trial court sentenced Geyer to four years, with two suspended to probation. This appeal followed. Analysis I. Opportunity to Contest the PSI Geyer contends he did not have an adequate opportunity to address the trial court regarding any inaccuracies in his PSI. The purpose of a PSI is to provide a trial court with information to use for individualized sentencing. Dillard v. State, 827 N.E.2d 570, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). "[W]e are generally concerned only with insuring that the defendant had an opportunity to examine the report and challenge any inaccuracies contained therein, pursuant to I.C.

Download Gregory A. Geyer v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law