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
Dec 22 2010, 10:09 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: R. PATRICK MAGRATH Alcorn Goering & Sage, LLP Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JANINE STECK HUFFMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RYAN T. RENFROE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 40A01-1002-CR-96

APPEAL FROM THE JENNINGS CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jon W. Webster, Judge Cause Nos. 40C01-0909-MR-327 and 40C01-0912-FC-450

December 22, 2010

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Seventeen-year-old Ryan T. Renfroe shot and killed a husband and wife. He shot the sixty-nine-year-old husband in the head twice. He also shot the sixty-six-year-old wife, who was disabled and confined to a wheelchair, in the back of the head. While in jail awaiting trial, Renfroe attempted to escape his jail cell and, during the attempted escape, several correctional officers were severely injured. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Renfroe pled guilty to two counts of murder and one count of class C felony escape. The agreement provided that the sentences, to be determined at the trial court's discretion, would be served consecutively. The trial court sentenced Renfroe to an aggregate executed sentence of 124 years. Renfroe appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him and also that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Finding no abuse of discretion and that Renfroe has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On September 14, 2009, seventeen-year-old Renfroe went around asking people whether they knew where he could find a gun. The people he asked did not help him. The next day, on September 15, 2009, Renfroe went to a friend's house and used his friend's computer to obtain driving directions to Texas. Later that afternoon, Renfroe came into contact with sixty-nine-year-old Greg Gough. Renfroe and Greg agreed to meet at Greg's house and shoot guns. Renfroe had spent time with Greg in the past shooting guns. Renfroe went to Greg's house at approximately 5:30 p.m. They went in the backyard and shot various

2

types of rifles and handguns. Greg and his sixty-six-year-old wife, Margaret, invited Renfroe to stay for dinner. Following dinner, Renfroe and Greg brought the guns into a bedroom to clean them. Renfroe grabbed one of the guns off the bed and shot Greg in the head. Greg fell to the ground. When Greg struggled to stand up, Renfroe shot Greg in the head a second time. Renfroe then walked out of the bedroom and observed Margaret sitting in her wheelchair at the kitchen table. Margaret was disabled and had long been confined to a wheelchair. Renfroe aimed the gun's laser sight at Margaret and shot her in the back of the head. After Renfroe killed his victims, he went through Greg's pockets to find keys to the couples' Chevrolet Camaro. Renfroe found the keys and proceeded to steal money, three guns, including the murder weapon, and Margaret's purse. Renfroe then sped away in his victims' car. Although Renfroe intended to drive to Texas, he crashed the vehicle shortly thereafter. Upon crashing, Renfroe grabbed his stolen items and got a ride from a passerby to a truck stop. A police officer, who had been dispatched to the truck stop to find the individual who had left the scene of the car accident, located Renfroe. While Renfroe initially gave false age and identification information to the officer, he quickly revealed his real identity and stated that two individuals were dead at the Gough residence. Renfroe subsequently made a full confession of the events that had transpired. Renfroe indicated that he had been provoked to commit the murders because Greg had made inappropriate sexual advances toward him and also that a voice in his head told him to shoot his victims. Tr. at 40-45.

3

On September 18, 2009, the State charged Renfroe with two counts of murder, two counts of class A felony robbery, class D felony auto theft, and class B misdemeanor failure to stop after an accident. While incarcerated awaiting trial on those counts, Renfroe and other inmates attempted escape from their jail cells, during which several correctional officers were severely injured. As a result, on December 16, 2009, the State charged Renfroe with class C felony escape. On that same date, Renfroe and the State entered into a consolidated plea agreement, and the trial court held a plea hearing. Renfroe pled guilty to two counts of murder and one count of attempted escape. Pursuant to the consolidated agreement, the sentences on those convictions were left to the trial court's discretion, but the sentences would be served consecutively. A sentencing hearing was held on February 3, 2010. The trial court sentenced Renfroe to fifty-eight years on the first murder count, sixty years on the second murder count, and six years for attempted escape, all to be served consecutively, for a total of 124 years of imprisonment. This appeal ensued. Discussion and Decision Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review those decisions on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. The trial court is required to enter a sentencing statement explaining its reasons for imposing the sentence which provides a recitation of facts, in some detail, which are peculiar to the particular defendant and the crime, and such facts must have support in the record. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if

4

the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. During sentencing, the trial court may consider certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Ind. Code

Download Ryan T. Renfroe v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law