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: LOUIS W. DENNEY Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MARA MCCABE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RONALD S. HOBBS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 18A05-0608-CR-460

APPEAL FROM THE DELAWARE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert L. Barnet, Judge Cause No. 18C03-0601-FA-1

May 10, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Ronald S. Hobbs asks us to find two additional mitigating circumstances and then "reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and impose a sentence less than the maximum allowable sentence." (Appellant's Br. at 8.) Because the court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to find the two mitigating circumstances Hobbs raises on appeal, we find no error. 1 Therefore, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2000, Hobbs lived with his wife, two daughters, and two step-daughters. The State charged Hobbs with four counts of child seduction as Class D felonies 2 and one count of child molesting as a Class A felony. 3 Hobbs pled guilty to three counts of child seduction as Class D felonies in exchange for the State's agreement to drop the other two charges. The three counts to which he pled guilty alleged that in October of 2000, when Hobbs was thirty-eight years old, he "engaged in fondling or touching with [his sixteenyear-old step-daughter] with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or adult." (Appellant's App. at 14-16.) The court accepted Hobbs' plea and conducted a sentencing hearing. The court found three mitigators: Hobbs' plea indicating acceptance of responsibility; Hobbs' history of maintaining employment to support his family; and Hobbs' "genuine remorse." (Id. at 99.) The court also found three aggravators: Hobbs' criminal history, including

Hobbs argues only that the court would have balanced the aggravators and mitigators differently if it had found the two additional mitigators. He does not assert the court improperly weighed the aggravators and mitigators found. Accordingly, we do not review the appropriateness of Hobbs' sentence in light of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found. 2 Ind. Code

Download Ronald S. Hobbs v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law