Opinion
24A-CR-1304
12-18-2024
Shannon Goff, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Suzy St. John Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Jose D. Salinas, Judge The Honorable John M. Christ, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D23-2402-F6-5442
Attorney for Appellant Suzy St. John Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
WEISSMANN, JUDGE
[¶1] Shannon Goff was convicted of only two of the five offenses with which he was charged, but the trial court entered a sentencing order that was silent as to the remaining three counts. Goff and the State agree that this omission in the sentencing order renders it inadequate. We remand for correction of the sentencing order to reflect the disposition of all five charges.
Facts
[¶2] Goff's involvement in a domestic violence incident led to the State charging him with five offenses:
Count I: Strangulation, as a Level 6 felony;
Count II: Intimidation, as a Level 6 felony;
Count III: Domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor;
Count IV: Interference with reporting a crime, as a Class A misdemeanor; and
Count V: Criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor.
[¶3] Before trial, the trial court dismissed Count V (criminal mischief) at the State's request. During trial, after the close of the State's presentation of evidence, the trial court entered a not guilty verdict on Count IV (interference with reporting a crime) based on insufficient evidence. Goff's trial proceeded on the remaining three counts, with the jury ultimately acquitting Goff of Count I (strangulation) and finding him guilty of Counts II and III (intimidation and domestic battery, respectively).
[¶4] Though Goff faced five counts, the trial court's sentencing order shows only the disposition of Counts II and III, as follows:
The Defendant was charged with the following crimes, resulting in the following Dispositions under the above referenced cause:
PARTI
CHARGES
COUNT
CRIME
GOC
STATUTORY CITATION
DISPOSITION
II
35-45-2-1 (a)(4)/F6: Intimidation: Threat is to commit a forcible felony
35-45-2-1 (a)(4)
Finding of Guilty
III
35-42-2-1.3(a)(1)/MA: Domestic Battery
35-42-2-1.3(a)(1)
Finding of Guilty
As a result of the above convictions, the Court has sentenced the defendant as follows:
App. Vol. II, p. 13.
PART II
SENTENCE
COUNT
SENTENCE
SUSPENDED
CONCURRENT
CONSECUTIVE
WITH (COUNT OR CASE NUMBERS)
II
0 Year(s) and 545 Day(s)
0 Year(s) and 395 Day(s)
III
0 Year(s) and 365 Day(s)
0 Year(s) and 215 Day(s)
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] Goff appeals, arguing that his sentencing order should be corrected to reflect the disposition of the three charges omitted from it. In Crane v. State, 147 N.E.3d 424 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), this Court faced a nearly identical challenge involving the same Marion County courts' sentencing template. The Crane Court remanded for correction of the sentencing order after ruling that "[t]he better practice is for sentencing orders to be complete and accurate with respect to the charges that were tried and the disposition of each, not just the charges that were reduced to a conviction." Id. at 425 (emphasis in original). In a different context, our Supreme Court has similarly recognized that "careful and complete" sentencing orders aid appellate review. Greer v. State, 749 N.E.2d 545, 552 (Ind. 2001). Accordingly, we remand for correction of Goff's sentencing order to reflect the disposition of all five charges that he faced.
[¶6] Remanded.
Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.