Weyland v. State

Full title: Ronald C. WEYLAND, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana…

Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Date published: Oct 5, 2015

40 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. 48A04–1409–CR–446.

10-05-2015

Ronald C. WEYLAND, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

Frederick Vaiana, Voyles Zahn & Paul, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi Kathryn Stein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

BAILEY, Judge.

Frederick Vaiana, Voyles Zahn & Paul, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi Kathryn Stein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

BAILEY, Judge.

[1] Ronald C. Weyland (“Weyland”) appealed his convictions for Child Molesting and Attempted Child Molesting, as Class A felonies, and Child Molesting, as a Class C felony. This Court affirmed the convictions for Attempted Child Molesting, as a Class A felony, and Child Molesting, as a Class C felony, but reversed the conviction for Child Molesting, as a Class A felony, for insufficiency of the evidence. Weyland v. State, No. 48A04–1409–CR–446 (Ind.Ct.App. Jun. 3, 2015). We remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate Weyland's conviction for Child Molesting, as a Class A felony.

[2] On July 1, 2015, Weyland filed a petition for rehearing, requesting that this Court provide specific instructions to the trial court to resentence him upon remand. In his petition, Weyland directs our attention to this Court's opinion in Sanjari v. State, 981 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. denied. In Sanjari, this Court “acknowledge[d] that a trial court is likely to view individual sentences in a multi-count proceeding as part of an overall plan ... that can be overthrown if one or more of the convictions is reversed or reduced in degree.” Id. at 583. Weyland argues that, in sentencing him to forty-five years imprisonment, the trial court's decision took into account the Class A-level Child Molesting conviction as a basis for an aggravated sentence, and this Court's decision to reverse the conviction worked to “overthrow [ ]” the trial court's sentencing plan. Id.

[3] We agree. We accordingly grant rehearing and add to our instructions upon remand an instruction to the trial court to resentence Weyland. We reaffirm our prior opinion in all other respects.

BARNES, J., concurs.

RILEY, J., votes to deny Appellant's Petition for Rehearing.