William D. James v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
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, Apr 20 2012, 8:36 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the
case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
SEAN P. HILGENDORF GREGORY F. ZOELLER
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
GEORGE P. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIAM D. JAMES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 71A03-1110-CR-486
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge
Cause No. 71D01-0911-FA-51
April 20, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
William James appeals his thirty-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting.
We affirm.
Issue
James raises one issue, which we restate as whether his thirty-year sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
On October 31, 2009, James had sexual intercourse with his five-year-old
daughter. On November 13, 2009, James was charged with Class A felony child
molesting. On August 22, 2011, the morning of trial, James pled guilty to the charge.
Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced James to the advisory sentence of thirty
years. James now appeals.
Analysis
James argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence
is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender.
Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s
sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v.
State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a
2
defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate.” Id.
The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—
the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of
counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the
crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B),
we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended.
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
In considering the nature of the offense, it is true that James was charged with and
pled guilty to only one offense. James, however, pled guilty to having vaginal
intercourse with his daughter. In committing this offense, James violated a position of
trust. As the trial court recognized, James “violated that trust in the most horrible way
imaginable, and she will never be able to really process that or understand why her daddy
would do that to her.” Sent. Tr. p. 13. This is especially true when considering that
James’s daughter was only five years old at the time of the offense.
3
James argues that, although the nature of the offense is serious, it is negated by his
guilty plea, his mental illness, and his lack of criminal history. We recognize that James
pled guilty to the charged offense in an open plea. James, however, waited until the
morning of trial to plead guilty, requiring the State and his daughter to prepare for trial.
Further, James has not established that his mental health issues contributed to, or were
otherwise related to, the commission of the offense, and we are not convinced that those
issues reflect positively on his character. Finally, although James has no significant
criminal history, we cannot say that fact renders the thirty-year advisory sentence
inappropriate. In light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender,
James has not established that his sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
James has not established that his thirty-year advisory sentence is inappropriate.
We affirm.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and MAY, J., concur.
4