Anglemyer v. State, No. 43S05-0606-CR-230.

Docket NºNo. 43S05-0606-CR-230.
Citation875 N.E.2d 218
Case DateOctober 30, 2007
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana
875 N.E.2d 218
Alexander J. ANGLEMYER, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 43S05-0606-CR-230.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
October 30, 2007.

[875 N.E.2d 219]

Joel M. Schumm, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, IN, Michael W. Reed, Reed & Earhart Attorneys at Law, P.C., Warsaw, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Justin F. Roebel, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

RUCKER, Justice.


The defendant-petitioner, Alexander J. Anglemyer, seeks rehearing following our decision affirming his sentences for robbery and battery. We grant rehearing solely to clarify that a defendant who pleads guilty does not forfeit the opportunity to claim on appeal that the trial court should have considered his guilty plea a mitigating circumstance even though the defendant failed to assert this claim at sentencing.

A detailed recitation of the facts, procedural history, and background of this case is set forth in our original opinion. See

875 N.E.2d 220

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007). Here, we recite only the facts necessary to our decision on rehearing. For his conduct in beating, kicking, and taking money from a pizza delivery driver, Anglemyer was charged with robbery as a Class B felony and battery as a Class C felony. Anglemyer was arrested shortly after the assault. More specifically, the record shows an officer on bicycle patrol apprehended Anglemyer within minutes of the crime. Anglemyer later explained to a booking officer that "he thought it was going to be an easy steal" and that "he did not think he would get caught by a bike cop." App. at 25.

Anglemyer pleaded guilty as charged under terms of a plea agreement that provided in part that the "sentence will not exceed sixteen (16) years executed." App. at 8. The trial court imposed a sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, Anglemyer challenged his sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). He also alleged trial court error in identifying and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. Addressing this latter claim only, the Court of Appeals focused upon the scope of appellate review, as well as whether trial courts were still required to enter sentencing statements in light of the 2005 amendments to Indiana's sentencing statutes. We granted transfer to address these issues. However, we also addressed Anglemyer's claim about the inappropriateness of his sentence and his claim of trial court error in imposing sentence. Among other things, Anglemyer argued that the trial court overlooked as a mitigating factor his plea of guilty to the charges. Disposing of this argument, we observed that at his sentencing hearing Anglemyer did not mention his guilty plea as a factor in mitigation. We cited the general proposition that "the trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a mitigating factor that was not raised at sentencing." Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 492 (citing ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1462 practice notes
  • Brown v. State, No. 15A01-0812-CR-566.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 10, 2009
    ...sentences, are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. A trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing enhanced or consecutive sentences. Creekmore v. State, 853 N.E.2d 523 (Ind.Ct.App.200......
  • Ramon v. State, No. 17A03-0707-CR-333.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 10, 2008
    ...supported by the record or are "improper as a matter of law." See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Our supreme court has indicated that a minor and non-related criminal history, although not a significant aggravator, is not an improper ......
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), quoted in Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.2007). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.......
  • Rich v. State, No. 79A05-0712-CR-687.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 16, 2008
    ...Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, we "may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1457 cases
  • Brown v. State, No. 15A01-0812-CR-566.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 10, 2009
    ...sentences, are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. A trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing enhanced or consecutive sentences. Creekmore v. State, 853 N.E.2d 523 (Ind.Ct.App.200......
  • Ramon v. State, No. 17A03-0707-CR-333.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 10, 2008
    ...supported by the record or are "improper as a matter of law." See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Our supreme court has indicated that a minor and non-related criminal history, although not a significant aggravator, is not an improper ......
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), quoted in Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.2007). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.......
  • Rich v. State, No. 79A05-0712-CR-687.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 16, 2008
    ...Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. When reviewing a sentence imposed by the trial court, we "may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT