Christopher M. Knight v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jul 31 2015, 8:56 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anthony S. Churchward Gregory F. Zoeller
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher M. Knight, July 31, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1501-CR-29
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Cause No. 02D04-1404-FD-426
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1501-CR-29 | July 31, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Christopher M. Knight appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he
pleaded guilty to class D felony Domestic Battery.1 Knight argues that the trial
court abused its discretion by failing to find his guilty plea to be a mitigating
factor. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Knight and Miranda Jones have one child together. They separated in August
2013 and had not spoken to one another until the evening of April 14, 2014.
That evening, Knight was kicked out of a substance abuse rehabilitation center
because he was intoxicated. Jones picked him up; her two minor children were
in the backseat of the vehicle. While Jones was driving her vehicle, Knight
began striking her in the head and face with a closed fist for no apparent reason,
causing pain, redness, and swelling. Jones called 911. Knight continued
striking her during the 911 call, so the battery can be heard on the 911 tape.
Eventually, Jones stopped the car and ordered Knight to get out. He refused
and she attempted to exit the vehicle. He grabbed her by the hair, pulling her
back into the car, and yelled at her. He fled, but was later found and arrested
by law enforcement officers.
[3] On April 18, 2014, the State charged Knight with class D felony domestic
battery. On September 22, 2014, Knight pleaded guilty as charged without a
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(b)(2). The Indiana criminal code has been substantially amended as of July 1,
2014, but we refer to and apply the version that was in effect at the time Knight committed the offense herein.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1501-CR-29 | July 31, 2015 Page 2 of 5
plea agreement. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 10,
2014, and found Knight’s extensive criminal history, the fact that he committed
new offenses while out on bond for the instant offense, the fact that prior
rehabilitation has failed, and the facts and circumstances of the instant case as
aggravating factors. The trial court also stated that “I will note as mitigating
circumstances his plea of guilty; however, I don’t put a lot of stock in that
considering it’s all on tape.” Sent. Tr. p. 15. In the end, the trial court found
that the aggravators outweighed the mitigating circumstance and imposed a
three-year sentence. Knight now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Knight’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to find his guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance. Sentencing is a
discretionary function of the trial court, and we afford considerable deference to
the trial court’s judgment. Eiler v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010). When sentencing a defendant for a felony, the trial court must enter a
sentencing statement “including reasonably detailed reasons or circumstances
for imposing a particular sentence.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. We no longer review a trial
court’s weighing of mitigators and aggravators. Id. at 490-91.
[5] Initially, we note that during the sentencing hearing, the trial court explicitly
stated that it did find the guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance. Sent. Tr.
p. 15. It merely found that the aggravators outweighed it. As noted above, we
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1501-CR-29 | July 31, 2015 Page 3 of 5
no longer review the way in which a trial court weighs aggravators and
mitigators, so this argument is unavailing.
[6] We acknowledge, however, that the written sentencing order states that there
were no mitigators. Appellant’s App. p. 38. Solely for argument’s sake, we will
address Knight’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
consider the guilty plea as a mitigator. It is well established that the significance
of a guilty plea is dramatically reduced if substantial admissible evidence exists
against the defendant. Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11, 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
In this case, Knight can be heard hitting Jones during the 911 call, and his
battery caused visible injuries to Jones. Given the substantial evidence of his
guilt, Knight’s decision to plead guilty was pragmatic. See Wells v. State, 836
N.E.2d 475, 479-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Consequently, we cannot say that the
trial court abused its discretion in failing to find Knight’s plea as a mitigator.
[7] Even if we were to find that the trial court should have found the guilty plea to
be a mitigator, we would affirm. If we conclude that the trial court has abused
its discretion—by, for example, neglecting to find a mitigator—we will remand
for resentencing only “if we cannot say with confidence that the trial court
would have imposed the same sentence had it properly considered reasons that
enjoy support in the record.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491. Here, Knight’s
criminal history included three juvenile adjudications, twenty-six misdemeanor
convictions, five felony convictions, three suspended sentence modifications,
and five suspended sentence revocations. He was charged with two offenses
while on bond for the instant case—public intoxication and invasion of privacy.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1501-CR-29 | July 31, 2015 Page 4 of 5
He failed to appear at his first scheduled sentencing hearing in this case. As for
the facts and circumstances of the offense, Knight’s estranged girlfriend agreed
to pick him up because he was too intoxicated to attend substance abuse
treatment. He began hitting her repeatedly, while she was driving, for no
reason, causing her to sustain visible injuries. All of this occurred with two
minor children, one of whom was his child, in the backseat of the car. We are
confident that even if the trial court had found the guilty plea to be a mitigator,
the aggravators would have easily outweighed it, and the same sentence would
have been imposed. In any event, therefore, we affirm.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1501-CR-29 | July 31, 2015 Page 5 of 5