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: MATTHEW D. ANGLEMEYER Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana MARJORIE LAWYER-SMITH Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

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

Dec 27 2010, 9:55 am

CLERK

No. 49A04-1001-CR-34

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, Judge Cause No. 49G01-0902-FB-23195

December 27, 2010

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

William Newhouse appeals his twenty-four year sentence, alleging the trial court considered an improper aggravator and abused its discretion when failing to allow him to enter a rehabilitation program in lieu of incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 5, 2009, Newhouse was arrested after police received a call about a possible "peeping tom" and found Newhouse standing outside the victim's bedroom window with his genitalia exposed. He was charged with two counts of Class B felony burglary,1 one count of Class B felony attempted burglary,2 one count of Class D felony stalking,3 three counts of Class D felony voyeurism,4 one count of Class D felony attempted residential entry,5 one count of Class A misdemeanor public indecency,6 and one count of Class C misdemeanor public nudity.7 He entered a plea of guilty to all counts. The court sentenced Newhouse to twenty-four years, with twelve years to be served in the Department of Correction, two years served in Community Corrections work release, and ten years suspended. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and we review 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 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision

1 2

Ind. Code

Download William Newhouse v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law