Summary
responding to the Court of Appeals' statement that “the maximum sentence [for Escobedo] can be justified as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and circumstances of the crime” (quoting Escobedo v. State, 987 N.E.2d 103, 120 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), vacated )
Summary of this case from Brown v. StateOpinion
No. 71S03–1306–CR–455.
2013-06-28
Valentin ESCOBEDO, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01–0812–FA–49; The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge. Jeffrey L. Sanford, South Bend, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01–0812–FA–49; The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge.
Jeffrey L. Sanford, South Bend, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03–1202–CR–60
DICKSON, Chief Justice.
Sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty-three years upon convictions for Battery, a class A felony, and Neglect of a Dependent as a class D felony, the defendant appealed asserting claims of error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and seeking appellate sentence review and revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Escobedo v. State, 987 N.E.2d 103 (Ind.Ct.App.2013). We now grant transfer to address a single point.
In rejecting the defendant's request for appellate sentence revision, the Court of Appeals summarized its analysis as follows: “In other words, the maximum sentence here can be justified as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and circumstances of the crime.” Id. at 120. We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a community's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. Notwithstanding this reference, however, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence imposed by the trial court is appropriate and should be affirmed.
In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).