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: ANTHONY S. CHURCHWARD Deputy Public Defender Fort Wayne, Indiana

FILED
Apr 13 2009, 9:36 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

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
MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A03-0810-CR-520

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., Judge Cause Nos. 02D04-0703-FC-59 02D04-0703-FC-60 02D04-0703-FC-61 02D04-0703-FC-62 02D04-0705-FC-136 02D04-0707-FC-171

April 13, 2009

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a guilty plea, Miguel Guzman appeals his convictions for six counts of forgery, all Class C felonies; five counts of check fraud, all Class D felonies; and one count of fraud on a financial institution, a Class C felony. On belated appeal, Guzman raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence of thirty years, with six years suspended, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Concluding Guzman's sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm. However, for reasons explained below, we also remand for the trial court to correct an error in one of its judgments of conviction and to sentence Guzman accordingly. See infra, note 1. Facts and Procedural History On six separate occasions from June 2006 to January 2007, Guzman fraudulently purchased approximately $16,500 in merchandise from several retailers in the Fort Wayne area. On five of these occasions, Guzman procured the fraudulent purchases by forging checks under an assumed identity; on the sixth occasion, Guzman opened a checking account at a bank under an assumed identity, wrote a check drawn on the account, and withdrew the funds from the account before the check cleared. The State charged Guzman with six counts of forgery, all Class C felonies; five counts of check fraud, all Class D felonies; and one count of fraud on a financial institution, a Class C felony. Guzman pled guilty to these offenses without benefit of a plea agreement.
2

After accepting Guzman's plea, the trial court found that Guzman's criminal history and "the number of different transactions and number of different victims" were aggravating circumstances and that Guzman's guilty plea was a mitigating circumstance. Transcript at 43. Based on these findings, the trial court sentenced Guzman to five years, with one year suspended, for each of the Class C felony forgery convictions; one and one-half years on each of the Class D felony check fraud convictions; and one and onehalf years on the Class C felony fraud on a financial institution conviction. 1 The trial court also ordered that Guzman serve the terms for the check fraud and fraud on a financial institution convictions concurrent to the forgery convictions and that Guzman serve the terms for the forgery convictions consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of thirty years, with six of those years suspended. Guzman now appeals. Discussion and Decision Guzman argues his sentence is inappropriate. This court has authority to revise a sentence "if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). We may "revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied," Neale v. State, 826 N.E.2d 635, 639 (Ind. 2005), and recognize the advisory sentence "is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed," Weiss v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1070, 1072 (Ind. 2006). In determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we examine both the nature of the
The trial court's judgment states that Guzman's co nviction for fraud on a financial institution was entered as a Class D felony. See Appellant's Appendix at 147. The offense, however, was charged as a Class C felony, see id. at 72; see also Ind. Code

Download Miguel Angel Guzman v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law