Marcus Lee McCain v. State of Indiana ( 2020 )

FILED
Jan 06 2020, 10:06 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Paul G. Stracci Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
J. Michael Woods Attorney General of Indiana
Stracci Law Group, P.C. J.T. Whitehead
Crown Point, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marcus Lee McCain, January 6, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1113
v. Appeal from the
Lake Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Samuel L. Cappas, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G04-1708-MR-6
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] The State charged Marcus Lee McCain with murder for shooting a man in the
head in a Gary restaurant, an incident that was captured on surveillance video.
The State also filed a firearm enhancement, alleging that McCain used a
firearm in the commission of murder. McCain argued self-defense during trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 1 of 20
but requested a voluntary-manslaughter instruction at the end of trial.
Thereafter, the jury found McCain guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and the
trial court found that the firearm enhancement applied. The court then
sentenced McCain to forty-five years: twenty-seven years for voluntary
manslaughter enhanced by eighteen years for using a firearm.
[2] McCain now appeals. He first argues that the trial court erred in imposing the
firearm enhancement because he was acquitted of the offense (murder) that was
alleged in the charging information for the enhancement. Because McCain
doesn’t dispute that (1) voluntary manslaughter is an offense that qualifies for
the firearm enhancement, (2) voluntary manslaughter is simply murder
mitigated by evidence of sudden heat, (3) he used a firearm to kill the victim,
and (4) he is the one who asked for the voluntary-manslaughter instruction at
the end of trial, we conclude that the court did not err in imposing the firearm
enhancement. McCain also argues that the court impermissibly enhanced his
sentence based upon its personal disagreement with the jury’s verdict. Given
that the court made it clear that it disagreed with the jury’s verdict and found as
an aggravator that the killing was “cold blooded” and “callous”—which is
directly at odds with the jury’s finding of sudden heat and therefore an
improper aggravator as a matter of law—we choose to exercise our authority to
review and revise sentences and remand this case with instructions for the court
to sentence McCain to thirty-five years: twenty-five years for voluntary
manslaughter enhanced by ten years for using a firearm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 2 of 20
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In the early morning hours of August 5, 2017, McCain, his cousin, and his
girlfriend went to Philly Steaks and Fresh Lemonade in Gary. McCain lived in
Wisconsin but was visiting family in Indiana. Although it was after midnight,
there were several people in the restaurant at the time, including two young
children. After McCain and his girlfriend placed their orders and were waiting
for their food, Marcel Harris and two other men walked into the restaurant.
According to McCain, he had “never met them a day in [his] life.” Tr. Vol. VI
p. 224. Two patrons, a husband and wife, noted that the atmosphere of the
restaurant changed when the three men walked in. McCain observed that one
of the men with Harris had a gun in his pocket and that Harris was “mean-
mugging” him. Tr. Vol. VII p. 29. When Harris walked outside the restaurant,
McCain followed him. The two exchanged words outside, and Harris re-
entered the restaurant and positioned himself at the door. Meanwhile, McCain
got his cousin from the car, and the two walked back inside the restaurant. As
soon as McCain walked back inside, an argument ensued between Harris and
McCain, with Harris pushing McCain. As shown on the restaurant’s video-
surveillance system, McCain then grabbed a gun from his cousin’s hand. See
Ex. 53 (DVD). According to McCain, after he grabbed the gun Harris told his
friend with the gun to “[s]hoot that shit.” Tr. Vol. VII p. 7. At this point,
McCain thought that “it was [Harris’s] life or [his] life.” Id. McCain then
shoved Harris several feet, walked up to him, and pushed the gun into the side
of his head. See Ex. 53. When Harris appeared to swat away the gun, McCain
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 3 of 20
shot him in the temple at close range, killing him. Id. McCain, his girlfriend,
and his cousin ran out of the restaurant. Id.
[4] Officers from the Gary Police Department responded shortly after the shooting.
They obtained still images of McCain from the restaurant’s video-surveillance
system and broadcasted them on Chicago news stations. Shortly thereafter,
someone from Wisconsin identified McCain as the shooter.
[5] On August 10, the State charged McCain with murder. Appellant’s App. Vol.
II p. 27. About a month later, the State added a firearm enhancement:
Marcus Lee McCain did knowingly or intentionally use a firearm
in the commission of the offense of Murder, contrary to I.C. 35-
50-2-11(d).
Id. at 41. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-11(d) provides, in relevant part:
The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of a
charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed
an offense sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment
if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person
knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of
the offense.
(Emphases added). An “offense” is defined as (1) a felony under Indiana Code
article 35-42 that results in death or serious bodily injury; (2) kidnapping; or (3)
criminal confinement as a Level 2 or 3 felony. Id. at (b).
[6] A four-day jury trial was held in December 2018. During opening statements,
defense counsel asked the jury to find that McCain acted in self-defense. See Tr.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 4 of 20
Vol. III p. 63. McCain testified in his own defense that he was “scared” when
Harris walked into the restaurant and pushed him and that he grabbed his
cousin’s gun because he was “scared.” Tr. Vol. VII pp. 5, 6.
[7] After presentation of the evidence, the trial court held a conference with the
attorneys to discuss final jury instructions. Defense counsel asked the trial court
to instruct the jury on Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-
included offense of murder. Id. at 71-73; see also Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3
(providing that a person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human
being while acting under sudden heat commits voluntary manslaughter and
explaining that sudden heat is a mitigating factor that reduces what otherwise
would be murder to voluntary manslaughter). The State did not object. During
closing arguments, defense counsel mainly argued self-defense, only briefly
mentioning sudden heat. Tr. Vol. VII pp. 129, 130. After closing arguments,
the trial court read final instructions to the jury.
[8] Thereafter, the jury found McCain guilty of voluntary manslaughter. McCain
then “waive[d] jury trial” on the firearm enhancement, and the jury was
excused. Id. at 166. As the trial court was about ready to start the firearm-
enhancement phase, the State pointed out that the charging information for the
enhancement alleged that McCain used a firearm in the commission of murder,
not voluntary manslaughter. However, the State argued that this did not matter
because voluntary manslaughter was “still a qualifying offense” under Section
35-50-2-11(b). Id. at 164. The State then asked the court if it should amend the
charging information to say voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 5 of 20
Defense counsel argued that it did not receive fair notice that the State was
going to pursue the firearm enhancement for voluntary manslaughter and asked
the court to find McCain “not guilty on the enhancement.” Id. at 170. The trial
court took the matter under advisement.
[9] In later announcing its decision, the trial court stated that the issue was whether
McCain “had notice to be able to prepare a defense” and that McCain indeed
had notice, as he was the one who asked for the voluntary-manslaughter
instruction at the end of trial, voluntary manslaughter is an inherently included
offense of murder, and defense counsel conceded that he had no defense to the
firearm enhancement if McCain was convicted of murder. Id. at 186. Finding
that there was “no blind-siding here that took place if [McCain] got convicted
of voluntary manslaughter,” the court entered judgment of conviction against
McCain on the firearm enhancement. Id. at 187. Also during this time, the
court made several comments that it disagreed with the jury’s verdict, saying,
for example, “It was the clearest case of . . . cold-blooded murder I’ve seen in
high definition in 32 years” and “[t]he voluntary manslaughter verdict was a
gift.” Id. at 186.
[10] McCain’s sentencing hearing was held in April 2019. At the hearing, the trial
court continued to make comments that it disagreed with the jury’s verdict,
saying, for example, “The words that the video spoke to me w[ere] cold
blooded and callous” and “that was the cleanest cut video I have ever seen of
my impression of a murder.” Tr. Vol. VIII pp. 49, 51. The court identified
numerous aggravators: (1) the shooting took place in a public environment with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 6 of 20
fourteen people in close proximity; (2) there were two children present during
the shooting; (3) the defendant endangered at least one other person who was
within the trajectory of the bullet a couple of seconds before the shooting; (4)
Harris “was shot at point-blank range with the gun placed to [his] temple”; (5)
the nature of the shooting was “particularly cold-blooded and callous despite
the fact that [McCain] was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter wherein heat
of passion was found to be a mitigating circumstance”; (6) McCain has a
criminal history, including two felony convictions; (7) McCain has previously
been incarcerated for thirty days, “which has failed to deter him from a life of
crime”; (8) McCain has seven to eight contacts with the criminal-justice system,
“which reflect adversely on [his] character in that he is not able to live a law-
abiding life;” (9) a Facebook post from McCain adversely reflects on his
character, as it shows that he invites “violence or conflict”: “ni**as kno fu**ing
wit me sh** can get wicked”; and (10) McCain is in need of correctional or
rehabilitative treatment that can only be provided by a penal facility.
Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 142-43; Tr. Vol. VIII p. 48; Sentencing Ex. A.
The court identified several mitigators: (1) McCain expressed remorse; (2)
approximately thirty people submitted letters on McCain’s behalf; however, the
court didn’t give this much weight because some of the letters described
McCain as “peacemaking” but he didn’t use those skills on the night of the
shooting; (3) McCain has a two-year-old child; however, the court didn’t give
this much weight either because McCain wasn’t court-ordered to pay support
for his child; and (4) McCain completed some courses in jail, which was
“somewhat of a mitigating factor.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 143-44; Tr.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 7 of 20
Vol. VIII pp. 45-47. Although McCain proffered other mitigators, the court
rejected them. See Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 143-44 (rejecting the proposed
mitigators that the crime is unlikely to recur, that McCain is likely to respond
favorably to short-term imprisonment, and that McCain accepted
responsibility). Near the end of its sentencing order, the court included the
following statement:
For the record, . . . the high-definition video, from the Court’s
perspective, depicts a cold-blooded callous execution type
shooting. The Court acknowledges that the jury found the
defendant guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter. To be clear, the
Court is not assessing this sentencing as that of a murder case or
using the factors of a murder to elevate the sentence of Voluntary
Manslaughter. In other words, the Court is not punishing the
defendant for the crime of Murder in the Voluntary
Manslaughter sentence. However, the manner in which the
defendant used the gun in such a callous nature as depicted in the
video, speaks for itself.
Id. at 144. Finding that the aggravators “substantially” outweigh the mitigators,
Tr. Vol. VIII p. 54, the court sentenced McCain to twenty-seven years for
voluntary manslaughter (three years shy of the maximum, see Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-4.5) enhanced by eighteen years for using a firearm (two years shy of the
maximum, see I.C. § 35-50-2-11(g)), for a total sentence of forty-five years
(which is the minimum sentence for murder, see Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3).
[11] McCain now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 8 of 20
Discussion and Decision
I. Firearm Enhancement
[12] McCain first contends that the trial court erred in imposing the firearm
enhancement because he was acquitted of the offense (murder) that was alleged
in the charging information for the enhancement. As set forth above, the
charging information for the firearm enhancement provides as follows:
Marcus Lee McCain did knowingly or intentionally use a firearm
in the commission of the offense of Murder, contrary to I.C. 35-
50-2-11(d).
Id. at 42. McCain argues that because the State specifically used “Murder” in
the charging information—as opposed to using the general statutory language
of “a felony under IC 35-42 that resulted in death or serious bodily injury”—
and McCain was acquitted of murder, the court could not impose the firearm
enhancement. Appellant’s Br. pp. 17-18.
[13] McCain makes various arguments why we should vacate his firearm
enhancement. We find no merit to any of them. Notably, McCain doesn’t
dispute that (1) voluntary manslaughter qualifies for the firearm enhancement
under Section 35-50-2-11(b) because it is “a felony under IC 35-42 that resulted
in death”; (2) voluntary manslaughter is simply murder mitigated by evidence
of sudden heat, see, e.g., Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 572 (Ind. 2018), reh’g
denied, cert. denied; and (3) he used a firearm to kill Harris. To the extent
McCain claims he didn’t have notice that the State was going to pursue the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 9 of 20
firearm enhancement for voluntary manslaughter, he is the one who asked for
the voluntary-manslaughter instruction at the final-instructions conference. Up
until that point, this was a murder/self-defense case only. The trial court did
not err in imposing the firearm enhancement.1
II. Sentencing
[14] McCain next contends that the trial court “impermissibly enhanced [his]
sentence based on an offense for which [he] was acquitted.” Appellant’s Br. p.
34. “While a trial judge is not prohibited from expressing his personal
disagreement with a jury’s verdict, a trial judge is prohibited from enhancing a
defendant’s sentence based upon his personal disagreement with the verdict.”
Hamman v. State, 504 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind. 1987). It is no secret here that the
trial judge disagreed with the jury’s verdict. After the jury was excused, the
judge made several comments about the jury’s voluntary-manslaughter verdict:
• “I didn’t see any sudden heat. It was the clearest case of,
I’d say, cold-blooded murder I’ve seen in high definition in
32 years. The only sudden heat comes in from your
client’s testimony that he was angry, which I don’t know
that I believe to be credible.” Tr. Vol. VII pp. 186-87.
• “The voluntary manslaughter verdict was a gift.” Id. at
187.
1
Although this argument could have been avoided if the State had simply alleged in the firearm-
enhancement charging information that McCain knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the
commission of “a felony under IC 35-42 that resulted in death or serious bodily injury,” we find no error
given the facts of this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 10 of 20
• “I don’t know what your defense is. Your client is on
video with a gun shooting the victim in the head at point-
blank range. . . . Whether you want to call it voluntary
manslaughter or murder, that’s up to you.” Id.
• “[I]t’s the most perfectly placed shot you can put to kill
somebody. The words that the video spoke to me w[ere]
cold blooded and callous.” Tr. Vol. VIII p. 49.
• Describing the video as “the cleanest cut video I have ever
seen of my impression of a murder.” Id. at 51.
• “Mr. McCain, your attorneys did their job for you and
minimized your exposure to prison time by obtaining a
voluntary manslaughter verdict for you. But when I look
at the video, it appears to me to be an execution-type
killing.” Id. at 53.
[15] Notwithstanding these comments, the judge included a statement at the end of
its sentencing order that although the video “depicted a cold-blooded callous
execution type shooting,” he was “not punishing McCain for the crime of
Murder in the Voluntary Manslaughter sentence.” But the judge did punish
McCain for the crime of murder, at least in part. Sudden heat exists when a
defendant is provoked by anger, rage, resentment, or terror to a degree sufficient
to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, prevent deliberation and
premeditation, and render the defendant incapable of cool reflection. Brantley,
91 N.E.3d at 572. Although the jury found the existence of sudden heat, the
judge found as an aggravator that the killing was “cold-blooded” and “callous.”
The judge’s finding that the killing was “cold-blooded” is clearly at odds with
the jury’s finding that the killing was done in sudden heat. When a jury finds a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 11 of 20
defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, aggravators like “cold-blooded”
and “callous” are improper as a matter of law. In addition, we note that the
judge crafted its sentence so that McCain was sentenced to exactly forty-five
years, the minimum sentence for murder. It is apparent that the judge
enhanced McCain’s sentence, in part, to compensate for what he believed to be
an erroneous verdict. See Gambill v. State, 436 N.E.2d 301, 305 (Ind. 1982).
[16] When a trial court relies on an improper aggravator, an appellate court has
several options, including (1) remanding the case to the trial court for a new
sentencing determination or (2) exercising our authority to review and revise
the sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Windhorst v. State, 868
N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied. We find that the first option is not
appropriate here given the trial judge’s outspoken disagreement with the jury’s
verdict. See Phelps v. State, 24 N.E.3d 525, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“We
believe, however, that the presence of aggravating circumstances justifying an
enhanced sentence does not wash away the stain left by a trial court’s blatant
disagreement with the jury verdict at sentencing.”). Accordingly, we choose the
second option.
[17] McCain asks us to reduce his sentence to the advisory term of seventeen-and-a-
half years for voluntary manslaughter and the minimum enhancement of five
years for using a firearm, for a total sentence of twenty-two-and-a-half years.
We think a reduction is appropriate, but not one that significant.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 12 of 20
[18] We agree with McCain that his criminal history is not particularly weighty or
similar to the present offense to justify an enhanced sentence. Although
McCain, who was thirty years old at the time of sentencing, has prior
convictions, they are mostly related to marijuana (two felonies for
manufacture/deliver THC, one misdemeanor for possession of THC, and one
misdemeanor for disorderly conduct). In addition, McCain’s longest period of
incarceration before the shooting was thirty days. But what is particularly
troubling about this shooting is that it occurred in a restaurant with numerous
people present, including two young children. Moreover, as the trial court
noted, although Harris was the first to push McCain, McCain had several
opportunities to leave the restaurant but didn’t. See Appellant’s App. Vol. III p.
143 (“[T]he defendant had three (3) opportunities to leave the restaurant and
use his ‘peace making skills’ to avoid the killing of the victim, which the
defendant failed to avoid.”). These circumstances justify an enhanced sentence.
We therefore remand this case with instructions that McCain’s sentence be
vacated and that the trial court sentence him to thirty-five years: twenty-five
years for voluntary manslaughter enhanced by ten years for using a firearm.
[19] Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Najam, J., concurs.
Tavitas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 13 of 20
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marcus Lee McCain, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1113
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
Tavitas, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[20] I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
[21] I agree with the outcome of the majority’s decision regarding the gun
enhancement. There was a variance here between the charging information
and the evidence presented. Our Supreme Court has held:
Because the charging information advises a defendant of the
accusations against him, the allegations in the pleading and the
evidence used at trial must be consistent with one another.
Simmons v. State, 585 N.E.2d 1341, 1344 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). A
variance is an essential difference between the two. Mitchem v.
State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 677 (Ind. 1997). Not all variances,
however, are fatal. Id. Relief is required only if the variance (1)
misled the defendant in preparing a defense, resulting in
prejudice, or (2) leaves the defendant vulnerable to future
prosecution under the same evidence. Winn v. State, 748 N.E.2d
352, 356 (Ind. 2001).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 14 of 20
Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559, 569 (Ind. 2014).
[22] Both murder and voluntary manslaughter fell within the offenses listed in the
gun enhancement statute. Moreover, McCain requested the voluntary
manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense of murder. McCain
should not have been surprised or misled by the variance, and his defenses did
not change. The variance also did not leave McCain vulnerable to future
prosecution under the same evidence.
[23] As for the reduction in McCain’s sentence, I respectfully disagree. I
acknowledge the trial court’s statements, which are quoted in the majority’s
opinion. The trial court, however, also stated in its sentencing order:
The Court acknowledges that the jury found the defendant guilty
of Voluntary Manslaughter. To be clear, the Court is not
assessing this sentencing as that of a murder case or using the
factors of a murder to elevate the sentence of Voluntary
Manslaughter. In other words, the Court is not punishing the
defendant for the crime of Murder in the Voluntary
Manslaughter sentence. However, the manner in which the
defendant used the gun in such a callous nature as depicted in the
video, speaks for itself.
Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 147. In determining McCain’s sentence, the trial
court specifically identified numerous aggravators and several mitigators and
found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators. The trial court then
sentenced McCain to a total of forty-five years in the DOC, which is five years
less than the maximum possible sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 15 of 20
[24] The majority relies on Gambill v. State, 436 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. 1982), which I find
distinguishable. In Gambill, although the defendant was charged with murder,
he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. At sentencing, the trial court
stated:
“I think that there are some statutory aggravating circumstances.
I think that the evidence shows that the defendant is in need of
correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can be best provided
by his commitment to a penal facility, and I think an imposition
of a reduced sentence or a suspension of the sentence and
imposition of probation would depreciate the seriousness of the
crime. So, there are those things here in my judgment.
“* * * I think the facts of the occurrence justify, and the evidence
would justify a conviction of murder. I think in fact that was the
offense committed. The jury, as it had a right to do, returned a
verdict of voluntary manslaughter for whatever reason, and I
think it was not the right verdict. Further than that I think the
police did an exemplary job of developing this case.”
Gambill, 436 N.E.2d at 304.
[25] Our Supreme Court took issue with the trial court’s sentencing because the trial
court’s statement was “deficient in that it merely repeats the conclusory
language of Ind. Code s 35-4.1-4-3 (35-50-1A-3) (Burns 1979) without stating
the facts through which the conclusions were reached.” Id.
The trial court’s statement of reasons for imposing an enhanced
sentence fails to provide this Court with facts enabling it to draw
a conclusion as to the reasonableness of the sentence. More
importantly, it also manifests that the trial court enhanced the
sentence by reason of a consideration that is beyond the pale of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 16 of 20
his authority. * * * * * It is clear that the trial court enhanced the
sentence to compensate for what he believed to be an erroneous
verdict. In so doing, he invaded the province of the jury.
Id. at 304-05.
[26] Unlike Gambill, this trial court entered a very detailed sentencing statement with
numerous valid aggravators. The trial court also specifically stated that it was
“not assessing this sentencing as that of a murder case or using the factors of a
murder to elevate the sentence of Voluntary Manslaughter.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. III p. 147. Accordingly, I find Gambill distinguishable.
[27] I find this case is more like our Supreme Court’s opinion in Wilson v. State, 458
N.E.2d 654, 656 (Ind. 1984), which our Supreme Court decided after Gambill.
As in Gambill, the defendant in Wilson was charged with murder and convicted
of voluntary manslaughter. At sentencing, the trial court stated:
“All right, Mr. Wilson, stand to the microphone. This was a
brutal killing. You face, when you went into trial, you faced a
maximum of sixty (60) years for this, minimum of thirty (30)
years.
Your lawyer performed brillantly (sic) and got you substantially
less. It does not change the brutal nature of this killing. To give
the minimum sentence in this case would be a terrible thing for
me to do. It would be a terrible thing to you. It would be a
terrible thing to me. I couldn’t live with myself do (sic) that.
Now, there are a number of things that we have to do to filter out
the personal feelings in sentencing. There shouldn’t be any
vindictiveness on my part when I sentence you; so we establish
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 17 of 20
standards to filter out those personal feelings from the sentencing
process.
There are two (2) aggravating factors I find[:] one that was
imposition of a reduced sentence would depreciate the
seriousness of the crime; and the other aggravating factor is that
the victim of the crime was infirm in that she was an unarmed
woman in a confrontation with an armed man.
There are no mitigating factors.
The finding that the jury made on sudden heat was an attribute to
your lawyer. He is so good that that jury just couldn’t find
against him on those facts except voluntary manslaughter, and
they gave you every benefit of every possible break they could
look for and find. But there are no mitigating factors.
I’m not taking it into consideration perceived perjury as was
approved in Wolf v. State, perceived perjury has to be so blatant
and so clear on the record that . . . there can be no argument
about it. That’s not necessarily the case here. And again you get
the benefit of the doubt because it is not clear perjury.
In assessing additional penalty for the aggravating factors, I find
that additional five (5) years to the presumptive sentence is
adequate. For that reason, you’re now sentenced to the
Department of Corrections for classification and confinement in
a maximum security facility for a period of fifteen (15) years.
Costs are assessed against the defendant.
There are no mitigating factors. There are two (2) aggravating
factors that I have previously mentioned.”
Wilson, 458 N.E.2d at 655-56.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 18 of 20
[28] On appeal, our Supreme Court held:
In the case now before us the judge does entertain a degree of
skepticism regarding the evidence of sudden heat and the success
which defense counsel had with the jury through use of his
persuasive talents. He is not however so resolutely opposed to
the jury verdict as was the case in Gambill. Consequently we find
that the statements of the trial judge were within the proper scope
of his authority to make an evaluative statement of the
circumstances surrounding the crime, and did not constitute an
invasion of the province of the jury or render the enhancement
suspect.
Id. at 656.
[29] As in Wilson, although the trial court did make some statements expressing
skepticism of the voluntary manslaughter conviction, I find nothing improper
regarding the trial court’s actual sentencing of McCain. Discussing the brutal
nature of McCain’s offense is part of the review the trial court may properly
perform; the trial court may consider the nature of the offense in imposing a
sentence. See Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.1(c); Gomillia v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846, 853
(Ind. 2014) (“Generally, the nature and circumstances of a crime is a proper
aggravating circumstance.”). The trial court was very specific regarding the
aggravators and mitigators in this case. The trial court made it clear that it was
following the law and basing the sentence upon those aggravators and
mitigators. As in Wilson, given the nature and circumstances of this voluntary
manslaughter offense, McCain’s prior two felony convictions, and the other
proper aggravators and mitigators, I do not find that the trial court abused its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 19 of 20
discretion, especially in light of the fact that the trial court did not impose the
maximum sentence. Moreover, I do not find this sentence inappropriate. I
would affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1113 | January 6, 2020 Page 20 of 20