Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialpleafelonymisdemeanorbeyond a reasonable doubt

appealtrialmisdemeanor

Related Cases

Pennington v. State, 821 N.E.2d 899

Facts

In July 2002, Larry Pennington was arrested for driving while intoxicated and subsequently convicted of a Class C misdemeanor. He later pleaded guilty to an enhanced charge of operating while intoxicated as a Class D felony due to a prior conviction within five years. The trial court sentenced him to three years, with six months suspended, which he appealed.

In July 2002, Pennington was driving while intoxicated. He was arrested and charged with this offense. A jury found him guilty of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor pursuant to Ind.Code § 9–30–5–1.

Issue

1. Whether Pennington's sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). 2. Whether Pennington's sentence violates his constitutional rights as set forth in Blakely v. Washington.

Pennington presents two issues for our review, which we restate as: I. Whether Pennington's sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). II. Whether Pennington's sentence violates his constitutional rights as set forth in Blakely v. Washington.

Rule

The court must consider the nature of the offense and the character of the offender when reviewing a sentence under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Additionally, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, except for prior convictions.

Under Article VII, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution, we have the constitutional authority to review and revise sentences.

Analysis

The court found that while the trial court did not sufficiently articulate Pennington's criminal history, it engaged in the required evaluative process by referencing the presentence report and discussing Pennington's extensive alcohol-related offenses. The court determined that the prior convictions aggravator was appropriately used to enhance Pennington's sentence, and the other factors he claimed were improperly considered did not affect the outcome.

By reviewing the sentencing transcript and the trial court's sentencing statement in the instant case, we are able to conclude that although the trial court did not sufficiently articulate the information, the court did engage in the underlying evaluative process as required by Ind.Code § 35–38–1–3.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Pennington's sentence, concluding that the trial court properly enhanced the sentence based on his criminal history and did not violate Blakely.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Pennington's sentence was appropriate and that the trial court properly enhanced his sentence using his criminal history as an aggravator and finding no other circumstances to be aggravating.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's sentence, finding it appropriate based on the circumstances.

The Court of Appeals, Ratliff, Senior Judge, held that: 1 enhancement of sentence based on prior convictions aggravator was appropriate.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Marriage of Crivello, Not Reported in P.3d, 103 Wash.App. 1019, 2000 WL 1668014

Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114

In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849

In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 43 O.O.2d 459

Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532