Wells v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Elzey v. State

    68 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. App. 2016)

    "The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate." Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied.

  2. Jen v. State

    66 N.E.3d 1006 (Ind. App. 2016)

    "When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence." Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

  3. Brittingham v. State

    208 N.E.3d 669 (Ind. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "A modus operandi is ‘a pattern of criminal behavior so distinctive that separate crimes are recognized as the handiwork of the same wrongdoer.’ " Wells v. State , 2 N.E.3d 123, 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Penley v. State , 506 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 1987) ), trans. denied. [12] Relying on Williams , Brittingham argues his alleged offenses in Case 1 and Case 2 "are connected by a distinctive nature and have a common modus operandi."

  4. Schmidtz v. State

    Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-315 (Ind. App. Sep. 25, 2019)

    One relevant factor in considering the character of the defendant is criminal history. Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. [23] Schmidtz has a criminal record dating back to 1995.

  5. Carter v. State

    Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1701-CR-26 (Ind. App. Jun. 7, 2017)

    When considering the character of the offender, one relevant factor is the defendant's criminal history. Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

  6. Valdez v. State

    56 N.E.3d 1244 (Ind. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that a trial court does not have an affirmative duty to issue admonishments or limiting instructions sua sponte and holding that a defendant had waived appellate review of the argument

    [26] As for Valdez's right to represent himself, that issue is settled by the law of the case doctrine, “a discretionary tool by which appellate courts decline to revisit legal issues already determined on appeal in the same case and on substantially the same facts.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind.2000). We will not revisit the issue because Valdez has failed to show additional information to distinguish this appeal from his first appeal. Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 128–29 (Ind.Ct.App.2014). [27] Moreover, Valdez has conflated the standard for declaring someone mentally incompetent to represent himself and the standard to find someone insane.

  7. Kedrowitz v. State

    49 N.E.3d 196 (Ind. App. 2016)

    As we conduct our review, we consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied.

  8. Atwood v. State

    26 N.E.3d 1074 (Ind. App. 2015)

    Atwood's criminal history spans over a period of a decade and includes the following: three convictions of battery; intimidation; failure to return to lawful detention; theft; two convictions of possession of marijuana; public intoxication; two convictions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated; operating a vehicle without ever receiving a license; failure to stop after accident resulting in serious bodily injury; two convictions of operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator; and, two convictions of resisting law enforcement. See Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (when considering the character of an offender, the significance of a defendant's criminal history is a factor, and it is dependent on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense), trans. denied Atwood's criminal history shows that he has particular problems with substance abuse, abiding by this State's motor vehicle laws, and respecting authority, all of which concern his current conviction and are an indication that he has not learned from his previous offenses.

  9. Lady v. State

    25 N.E.3d 826 (Ind. App. 2014)

    The significance of a criminal history for assessing a defendant's character “varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied; see Keller, 987 N.E.2d at 1122 (noting in assessing defendant's character that a prior conviction was similar to the present offense). Additionally, Lady's juvenile criminal history includes disorderly conduct, leaving home without permission, criminal mischief, and truancy.

  10. Logan v. State

    14 N.E.3d 893 (Ind. App. 2014)

    Regarding the nature of the offense, one factor in determining the appropriateness of the deviation from the standard sentence is “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the typical offense.” Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied.