OPINION
KIRSCH, Judge.
Heather J. Shaw pled guilty and was convicted of attempted murder,1 a Class A felony. She was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment, which she appealed. A panel of this court determined that the [87] trial court considered an improper aggravating circumstance and remanded the case for re-sentencing. On remand, the trial court found that "the original sentence of fifty (50) years remains appropriate." Shaw appeals again, arguing that the amended sentencing order is insufficient and her sentence is manifestly unreasonable. '
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The pertinent facts are found in our memorandum decision in Shaw's previous appeal, Shaw v. State, No. 46A05-001-CR-472, 756 N.E.2d 1101 (Ind.Ct.App. September 26, 2001):
"The facts reveal that the victim, Nick lumac, suffered from lung cancer, which eventually confined him to his bed and required him to have home health care assistance. In September 1998, Glumae's family hired Shaw to live in Glumac's home and care for him at night. During periods of time in which Glumac required hospitalization, Shaw and her six-year-old son would continue living in Glumac's home and Shaw would, in effect, be on vacation from taking care of him.
In May 1999, Clumace was hospitalized for over one week due to an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. Shaw enjoyed this vacation from Glumac, as she thought he was too controlling. Shaw, still needing a break from him, decided to buy a tablet grinder on the day of his release from the hospital so that she could slip the antibiotic into his food. Upon her first attempt, Clumac refused to eat the food because it tasted bad. For four days thereafter, morning and night, Shaw stirred the crushed drug into his juice. She observed no effect.
Shaw next attempted to induce an allergic reaction from Glumac by changing laundry detergent. This, too, did not achieve her desired result of sending Glumae back to the hospital. She then, for six days, replaced CGlumac's kidney medication with different medication that she had stolen from another patient. She became very frustrated that there was no apparent effect on Clumac.
On June 13, Shaw obtained antifreeze, and the following day, she put a potentially lethal dose in Glumac's coffee. She made sure that he drank all of it and then left for her day job. Shaw returned later that day and found Hu-mac incoherent and confused. Finally, she had succeeded and Glumae was hospitalized on June 14.
Shaw visited CGlumac in the hospital each day and spent time with his family. At no time did she alert anyone to the possibility that he might be suffering from being poisoned. After a lengthy visit on June 17, she took one of Glu-mac's checks, forged it, and cashed it for one hundred dollars. On June 18, Glu-mac's family disconnected his life support and the following day he passed away from kidney failure. That same day, Shaw forged another one hundred dollar check. .
On June 27, Shaw's best friend sought out the police and informed them of what she knew about Shaw's conduct. Police questioned Shaw soon thereafter, but she denied any wrongdoing. A see-ond interview with Shaw was conducted on July 5. She initially admitted stealing Glumac's checks but denied poisoning him. Once a le detector test was set up, Shaw broke down and confessed.
The State charged Shaw with attempted murder on July 8, 1999. The State initially believed that it could not prove the cause of death because (lu-[88] mac had been cremated. On February 18, 2000, however, the State filed a motion to amend the charging information to add a charge of murder. Before the trial court could rule upon the motion, Shaw reached a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Shaw pled guilty to attempted murder and the State dismissed forgery charges that were filed in a separate action. The plea agreement made no provision with regard to sentencing."
Id. at * 2-4.
The trial court sentenced Shaw to fifty years' imprisonment. In her first appeal, Shaw argued that the trial court improperly considered Glumaec's death as an aggravating circumstance.2 Id. at *5. Relying on Conwell v. State, 542 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), a panel of this court determined that the trial court erred when it considered Glumac's death as an aggravating cireumstance because attempted murder is a lesser included offense of murder and "when a defendant pleads guilty to an included offense, the element(s) distinguishing it from the greater offense may not be used as an aggravating cireum-stance to enhance the sentence." Id. at * 6. The case was then remanded for proceedings consistent with our opinion.
On remand, the trial court again sentenced Shaw to fifty years' imprisonment. Shaw now appeals.
I. The Amended Sentencing Order
Shaw contends "the trial court's amended sentencing order contains no reference to the specific nature of the offense or the character of the offender and is therefore insufficient to afford an adequate review of the propriety of the fifty year sentence." Appellant's Brief at 7. The State argues that the trial court's amended sentencing statement directly addresses our decision that it applied an improper aggravating circumstance and the amended order, taken in conjunction with the original sentencing order, is sufficient.
First, we note that "[al sentencing statement serves two purposes: (1) it guards against the imposition of arbitrary or capricious sentences by ensuring that the sentencing judge will consider only proper factors; and (2) it facilitates appellate review of the sentence." Singer v. State, 674 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citation omitted).
"As long as the record indicates that the trial court engaged in the evaluative processes and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable, the purposes of the sentencing statement have been satisfied. When reviewing a sentencing statement this court is not limited to the written sentencing order but may examine the record as a whole to determine that the trial court made a sufficient statement of its reasons for selecting the sentence imposed."
Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Newman v. State, 719 N.E.2d 832, 839 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied (2000).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
KIRSCH, Judge.
Heather J. Shaw pled guilty and was convicted of attempted murder,1 a Class A felony. She was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment, which she appealed. A panel of this court determined that the [87] trial court considered an improper aggravating circumstance and remanded the case for re-sentencing. On remand, the trial court found that "the original sentence of fifty (50) years remains appropriate." Shaw appeals again, arguing that the amended sentencing order is insufficient and her sentence is manifestly unreasonable. '
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The pertinent facts are found in our memorandum decision in Shaw's previous appeal, Shaw v. State, No. 46A05-001-CR-472, 756 N.E.2d 1101 (Ind.Ct.App. September 26, 2001):
"The facts reveal that the victim, Nick lumac, suffered from lung cancer, which eventually confined him to his bed and required him to have home health care assistance. In September 1998, Glumae's family hired Shaw to live in Glumac's home and care for him at night. During periods of time in which Glumac required hospitalization, Shaw and her six-year-old son would continue living in Glumac's home and Shaw would, in effect, be on vacation from taking care of him.
In May 1999, Clumace was hospitalized for over one week due to an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. Shaw enjoyed this vacation from Glumac, as she thought he was too controlling. Shaw, still needing a break from him, decided to buy a tablet grinder on the day of his release from the hospital so that she could slip the antibiotic into his food. Upon her first attempt, Clumac refused to eat the food because it tasted bad. For four days thereafter, morning and night, Shaw stirred the crushed drug into his juice. She observed no effect.
Shaw next attempted to induce an allergic reaction from Glumac by changing laundry detergent. This, too, did not achieve her desired result of sending Glumae back to the hospital. She then, for six days, replaced CGlumac's kidney medication with different medication that she had stolen from another patient. She became very frustrated that there was no apparent effect on Clumac.
On June 13, Shaw obtained antifreeze, and the following day, she put a potentially lethal dose in Glumac's coffee. She made sure that he drank all of it and then left for her day job. Shaw returned later that day and found Hu-mac incoherent and confused. Finally, she had succeeded and Glumae was hospitalized on June 14.
Shaw visited CGlumac in the hospital each day and spent time with his family. At no time did she alert anyone to the possibility that he might be suffering from being poisoned. After a lengthy visit on June 17, she took one of Glu-mac's checks, forged it, and cashed it for one hundred dollars. On June 18, Glu-mac's family disconnected his life support and the following day he passed away from kidney failure. That same day, Shaw forged another one hundred dollar check. .
On June 27, Shaw's best friend sought out the police and informed them of what she knew about Shaw's conduct. Police questioned Shaw soon thereafter, but she denied any wrongdoing. A see-ond interview with Shaw was conducted on July 5. She initially admitted stealing Glumac's checks but denied poisoning him. Once a le detector test was set up, Shaw broke down and confessed.
The State charged Shaw with attempted murder on July 8, 1999. The State initially believed that it could not prove the cause of death because (lu-[88] mac had been cremated. On February 18, 2000, however, the State filed a motion to amend the charging information to add a charge of murder. Before the trial court could rule upon the motion, Shaw reached a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Shaw pled guilty to attempted murder and the State dismissed forgery charges that were filed in a separate action. The plea agreement made no provision with regard to sentencing."
Id. at * 2-4.
The trial court sentenced Shaw to fifty years' imprisonment. In her first appeal, Shaw argued that the trial court improperly considered Glumaec's death as an aggravating circumstance.2 Id. at *5. Relying on Conwell v. State, 542 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), a panel of this court determined that the trial court erred when it considered Glumac's death as an aggravating cireumstance because attempted murder is a lesser included offense of murder and "when a defendant pleads guilty to an included offense, the element(s) distinguishing it from the greater offense may not be used as an aggravating cireum-stance to enhance the sentence." Id. at * 6. The case was then remanded for proceedings consistent with our opinion.
On remand, the trial court again sentenced Shaw to fifty years' imprisonment. Shaw now appeals.
I. The Amended Sentencing Order
Shaw contends "the trial court's amended sentencing order contains no reference to the specific nature of the offense or the character of the offender and is therefore insufficient to afford an adequate review of the propriety of the fifty year sentence." Appellant's Brief at 7. The State argues that the trial court's amended sentencing statement directly addresses our decision that it applied an improper aggravating circumstance and the amended order, taken in conjunction with the original sentencing order, is sufficient.
First, we note that "[al sentencing statement serves two purposes: (1) it guards against the imposition of arbitrary or capricious sentences by ensuring that the sentencing judge will consider only proper factors; and (2) it facilitates appellate review of the sentence." Singer v. State, 674 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citation omitted).
"As long as the record indicates that the trial court engaged in the evaluative processes and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable, the purposes of the sentencing statement have been satisfied. When reviewing a sentencing statement this court is not limited to the written sentencing order but may examine the record as a whole to determine that the trial court made a sufficient statement of its reasons for selecting the sentence imposed."
Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Newman v. State, 719 N.E.2d 832, 839 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied (2000).
A sentencing statement must include: "(1) the identification of all significant mitigating and aggravating circumstances; (2) the specific facts and reasons that led the court to find the existence of each such cireumstance; and (8) reflection of an evaluation and balancing of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in fixing the sentence." O'Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 951 (Ind.2001) (citing Widener v. State, 659 N.E.2d 529, 533 (Ind.1995)). In her first appeal, Shaw did not argue that the trial court's sentencing statement was insufficient, and we find [89] that the trial court's original sentencing statement sufficiently identified and discussed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and reflected a balancing of those cireumstances in fixing Shaw's sentence. The case was remanded for re-sentencing solely on the grounds that the trial court considered an improper aggravating cireumstance. Where a case has been remanded for re-sentencing, "a trial court's responsibility in that cireumstance is to produce a new sentencing order that responds to the concerns" raised by our court.3 Id. at 952.
In this case, the trial court issued the following amended sentencing order on remand: "[tlhe court has now engaged in the process of reweighing the valid aggravating cireumstances and mitigating circumstances and finds that the aggravating cireumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The Court further finds that the original sentence of fifty (50) years remains appropriate." Appellant's Appendix at 107 (emphasis added). Although the amended sentencing order does not specifically set out each aggravating and mitigating cireumstance, it sufficiently responds to this court's concern that the trial court initially considered an improper aggravating cireumstance. Therefore, the amended order taken in conjunction with the original sentencing order is sufficient.
II. Reasonableness of Sentence
Shaw next argues that her sentence is manifestly unreasonable. "Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in determining a sentence," Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 972 (Ind.2002), Article 7, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court. "This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: 'The Court shall not revise a sentence authorized by statute unless the sentence is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Id. at 972-78 (citing App. R. T(B)).
The presumptive sentence is meant to be the starting point for the court's consideration of the sentence that is appropriate for the crime committed. See Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1214-15 (Ind.2002); Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1321 (Ind.1990). In this case, Shaw was convicted of attempted murder, a Class A felony. The presumptive sentence for a Class A felony is thirty. years. IC 85-50-24.
In its original sentencing order, the trial court found the following valid aggravating circumstances: 1) Shaw's actions were part of a prolonged effort to harm CGlumac; 2) Shaw was in a position of trust with Glumae and his family and Glu-mac was entirely dependent upon her help and care; 3) Glumae was seventy-three years old at the time the events took place; and 4) after Glumace was taken to the hospital upon ingesting the antifreeze, Shaw never offered any information to CHAumaec's medical providers, which possibly could have saved his life. Appellant's Appendix at 81-82. In addition, the trial court found the following mitigating circumstances: 1) Shaw pled guilty; 2) Shaw had no previous criminal history other than traffic-related matters; and 3) Shaw [90] expressed remorse for her actions to Glu-mac's family. Id. at 82.
Shaw received the maximum sentence of fifty years for her conviction of attempted murder, a Class A felony. She contends that the maximum sentence should be reserved for the very worst offenses and the very worst offenders. Appellant's Brief at 6 (citing Buchanan v. State, 699 N.E.2d 655 (Ind.1998)). She argues that because she had no previous criminal record other than traffic related matters and because she accepted responsibility for her actions by pleading guilty, she "was not the very worst offender and this was not the very worst offense;" id. at 7, therefore, her maximum sentence of fifty years is manifestly unreasonable.
Nonetheless, we find nothing in the nature of this offense and the character of this offender to indicate that Shaw's sentence was manifestly unreasonable. Shaw was hired by Glumac's family to care for the ailing, elderly man and was in a position of trust with both Glumace and his family. At some point, Shaw lost her home, and Glumac and his family allowed Shaw and her young son to live in Glu-mac's home in addition to receiving her salary. Shaw's young son referred to Glu-mac as "grandpa." In spite of this trust and assistance, Shaw set out on a prolonged plan to poison Glumac, watching the effect of various substances and trying different approaches to achieve the desired effect, culminating in serving Glumac antifreeze in his morning coffee. Afterward, Shaw sat with Glumaec's family, never suggesting what she had done. Had she done so, CGlumae's doctors may have been able to help him. Instead, Shaw commiserated as though she were a member of the family, but at the same time stole umaec's checks, then forged and cashed them. Shaw only confessed when police confront ed her and arranged a polygraph examination.
While Shaw had no prior criminal history, this fact alone does not paint an accurate picture of Shaw's character. Shaw calmly and methodically plotted and acted to poison Glumac, watching the results of her work while pretending to share in his family's grief. Afterwards, she explained that Glumae was too demanding and that she needed a "vacation" from him. In light of Shaw's character and the nature of her offense, we do not find that her sentence is manifestly unreasonable and therefore we decline to revise it.
Affirmed.
BARNES, J., concurs.
MATHIAS, J., dissents with separate opinion.