Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana , 989 N.E.2d 1248 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Jeffrey L. Sanford                                           Gregory F. Zoeller
    South Bend, Indiana                                          Attorney General of Indiana
    Angela N. Sanchez
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    In the
    Indiana Supreme Court                            Jun 28 2013, 11:36 am
    _________________________________
    No. 71S03-1306-CR-455
    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
    _________________________________
    On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-1202-CR-60
    _________________________________
    June 28, 2013
    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 cir-
    cumstances of the crime." 
    Id. at 120
    . We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a commu-
    nity's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. Notwithstanding this refer-
    ence, 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).
    Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 71S03-1306-CR-455

Citation Numbers: 989 N.E.2d 1248

Judges: David, Dickson, Massa, Rucker, Rush

Filed Date: 6/28/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023