Angel D. Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 7, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2380
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 07 2020, 10:50 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Heather M. Schuh-Ogle Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Attorney General of Indiana Guthrie, P.C. Josiah Swinney Columbus, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angel D. Sanders, February 7, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2380 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff Kelly S. Benjamin, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-1905-F6-2966

Vaidik, Judge.

[1] Angel D. Sanders pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug,

and the trial court imposed an above-advisory sentence of 730 days, with 114

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2380 | February 7, 2020 Page 1 of 3 days executed (time served) and the balance suspended with 680 days of

probation. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (providing that the sentencing range for a

Level 6 felony is six months to two-and-a-half years, with an advisory sentence

of one year). As a condition of probation, Sanders was ordered to participate in

and successfully complete a program called Women Recovering with a Purpose

(WRAP).

[2] Sanders now appeals her sentence, arguing, among other things, that the trial

court erred in sentencing her because it failed to issue a statement explaining its

reasons for imposing an above-advisory sentence. When sentencing a

defendant for a felony, a trial court is required to “issue a statement of the

court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes unless the court

imposes the advisory sentence[.]” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1.3. A trial court’s

sentencing statement must include “a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial

court’s reasons for imposing a particular sentence.” Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2017), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. A trial court

abuses its discretion when it does not issue a sentencing statement. Id.

[3] The State concedes that the trial court was required to issue a sentencing

statement and that it failed to do so. See Appellee’s Br. p. 11. However, citing

Govan v. State, 116 N.E.3d 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, the State

argues that “any error was harmless because her sentence was not

inappropriate.” Appellee’s Br. p. 11. In Govan, we affirmed a defendant’s

maximum habitual-offender enhancement notwithstanding the lack of a

sentencing statement because the defendant had numerous prior felony and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2380 | February 7, 2020 Page 2 of 3 misdemeanor convictions as well as a prior habitual-offender finding. 116

N.E.3d at 1178 (“Govan [has] accrued new convictions every few years, except

when he was in prison.”). Although Sanders has been arrested and charged

with crimes before, this is her first criminal conviction. Therefore, we cannot

say with confidence that the trial court’s failure to explain its sentencing

decision was harmless error. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court

for the entry of a new sentencing order.

[4] That being said, the parties tell us that after Sanders was sentenced but before

her Notice of Appeal was filed, the State filed a petition to revoke her probation

based on her violating the conditions of the WRAP program. The probation-

revocation hearing is currently scheduled for March 30, 2020. See 03C01-1905-

F6-2966. We leave it to the trial court on remand to determine how to proceed

in light of this development. If the court chooses to resentence Sanders entirely,

it is free to consider her conduct after the original sentencing. See Hull v. State,

839 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In any event, if the court imposes

an above-advisory sentence, it must include a statement of its reasons for doing

so. See I.C. § 35-38-1-1.3.

[5] Reversed and remanded.

Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2380 | February 7, 2020 Page 3 of 3