Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana

992 N.E.2d 743, 2013 WL 3355764, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 317

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 2013

Docket02A03-1212-CR-515

StatusPublished

This text of 992 N.E.2d 743 (Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 743, 2013 WL 3355764, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PANEL PER CURIAM.

Frederick L. King (“King”) pled guilty to Robbery, as a Class B felony, after taking a $14.99 shirt from a Fort Wayne retailer; as he left the store, King pushed a loss prevention officer to the floor, causing injury. The sentencing range for a Class B felony is from five years to twenty years imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of ten years. See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-5.

The trial court sentenced King to ten years imprisonment, with six years of the sentence suspended to probation. As aggravating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had three prior juvenile delinquency adjudications and, at the time of the instant offense, had been released on bond in another case involving the use of a firearm, resulting in a Class C felony charge. As mitigating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had pled guilty and expressed remorse.

*744 The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute 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.” Under this rule, and as interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind.2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57 (Ind.2003). The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.

Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court. See Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind.2013); Merida v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind.2013); Lynch v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind.2013).

Judgment affirmed.

NAJAM, J., BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur. 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PANEL PER CURIAM.

Frederick L. King (“King”) pled guilty to Robbery, as a Class B felony, after taking a $14.99 shirt from a Fort Wayne retailer; as he left the store, King pushed a loss prevention officer to the floor, causing injury. The sentencing range for a Class B felony is from five years to twenty years imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of ten years. See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-5.

The trial court sentenced King to ten years imprisonment, with six years of the sentence suspended to probation. As aggravating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had three prior juvenile delinquency adjudications and, at the time of the instant offense, had been released on bond in another case involving the use of a firearm, resulting in a Class C felony charge. As mitigating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had pled guilty and expressed remorse.

*744 The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute 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.” Under this rule, and as interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind.2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57 (Ind.2003). The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.

Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court. See Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind.2013); Merida v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind.2013); Lynch v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind.2013).

Judgment affirmed.

NAJAM, J., BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur. 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

992 N.E.2d 743, 2013 WL 3355764, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-l-king-v-state-of-indiana-indctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack