Ellis v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1673 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.3d 718 (Table) |
| Parties | Daniel ELLIS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: Marietto V. Massillamany, Erica Sawyer, Massillamany Jeter & Carson LLP, Fishers, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Daniel Ellis appeals following his conviction of Level 4 felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in his blood.1 He raises one issue, which we revise and restate as three issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in considering aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing, (2) whether Ellis’ sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character, and (3) whether the trial court improperly ordered Ellis to pay $38,000 in restitution. We affirm Ellis’ twelve-year sentence, but we reverse the restitution order and remand for further proceedings.
[2] On July 1, 2019, Ellis was driving south bound along a county road in rural Madison County, Indiana, when he fell asleep and his van veered over the center line. Danny Kinzer was riding his motorcycle north bound at the time. Kinzer applied his brakes but was unable to avoid colliding with Ellis’ vehicle. Emergency personnel arrived at the scene shortly after the crash, and an air ambulance transferred Kinzer to St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. Kinzer was pronounced dead at the hospital. Ellis was transferred to Community Hospital in Anderson, and the State obtained a search warrant to perform a blood draw. The Indiana State Department of Toxicology analyzed Ellis’ blood sample and determined it contained methamphetamines or amphetamines, THC, and a metabolite for cocaine.
[3] On September 30, 2019, the State charged Ellis with Level 4 felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood. Ellis pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement on June 15, 2020, and the trial court held a sentencing hearing on August 10, 2020. Kinzer's daughter testified at the hearing regarding the pain her father's death caused her and her family. Following her testimony, the trial court asked the State if it had any additional evidence to present, and the following exchanged occurred:
(Tr. Vol. I at 40-41.) The State did not enter the Lifeline bill into evidence or produce testimony regarding what portion of the bill the Kinzers had paid. The State also asked the trial court to take judicial notice of a probable cause affidavit filed in a previous case against Ellis. The probable cause affidavit indicated that Ellis drove under the influence of alcohol and crashed his vehicle while three children were in the car with him. Ellis did not put forth any evidence at the sentencing hearing, but he did make a statement to the trial court in which he said, "I am very sorry, and I never ever meant for anything to happen like this." (Id. at 43.) During argument prior to the court imposing sentence, Ellis’ counsel stated:
I would just ask the court to consider there's an outstanding Lifeline bill for thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000.00) that hasn't been paid and ordering restitution does make them hold [sic], that they are yet to be out the money to pay the bill. Judge, I think that the amount that is being requested, because of its amount, Judge, the forum for them to make that request might be um, more well suited for a wrongful death action and they could make that request there, Judge. I would just ask the court to consider that today.
(Id. at 48.)
[4] The trial court found Kinzer's advanced age at the time of his death to be an aggravating circumstance. The trial court also found Ellis’ three previous convictions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and his continued criminal behavior after those judicial interventions to be aggravating circumstances. The trial court did find as mitigating circumstances Ellis’ expression of remorse and his decision to plead guilty. The trial court sentenced Ellis to twelve years in the Indiana Department of Correction and ordered Ellis to pay $38,000 in restitution.
[5] We separately analyze claims related to the trial court's discretionary imposition of a sentence and claims that a sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Crouse v. State , 158 N.E.3d 388, 394 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). We trust sentencing decisions to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review such decisions for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 393. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Hudson v. State , 135 N.E.3d 973, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). A trial court may abuse its discretion at sentencing by:
(1) failing to enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement that includes aggravating and mitigating factors that are unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law.
Id. The trial court is not required to accept a defendant's arguments regarding what constitutes a mitigating circumstance, nor is the trial court required to give proposed mitigating circumstances the same level of importance as the defendant does. Comer v. State , 839 N.E.2d 721, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[6] Ellis argues the trial court improperly considered the impact Ellis’ crime had on the victim's family as an aggravating circumstance. He explains:
[D]eath was an essential element of the charged offense, and it is improper to consider the impact of the victim's death on his family. The trial court does not directly state that it was an aggravating factor, however, the record is clear that it was considered and given heavy weight.[2 ]
(Am. Appellant's Br. at 8.) We disagree. The trial court specifically listed as aggravating circumstances Kinzer's age, Ellis’ criminal history involving similar offenses, and past attempts at intervention through means other than imprisonment had failed to curb Ellis’ criminal behavior. Ellis does not argue that any of these aggravating circumstances were improper as a matter of law or not supported by the record. See Hale v. State , 128 N.E.3d 456, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (), trans. denied.
[7] Ellis also contends the trial court failed to consider the impact a long period of incarceration will have on his family as a mitigating circumstance. Ellis mentioned his family during his statement of allocution, but he mentioned them in the context of explaining how his life changed because of his crime. (See Tr. Vol. I at 43 ().) While the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report indicates Ellis has "ample support" from his siblings, mother, and stepfather, Ellis reported only "occasional contact with family," and he did not report having any dependent children. (App. Vol. II at 42.) Thus, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the impact his incarceration will have on his family as a mitigating circumstance at sentencing. See Reese v. State , 939 N.E.2d 695, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (), trans. denied.
[8] We may revise a sentence if it "is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Williams v. State , 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) ). We consider the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court and any other factors appearing in the record. Baumholser v. State , 62 N.E.3d 411, 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Our determination of inappropriateness "turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case." Cardwell v. State , 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The appellant must demonstrate his sentence is inappropriate. Baumholser , 62 N.E.3d at 418.
[9] Ellis argues that his maximum sentence is inappropriate because he is not one of the "worst offenders." See Buchanan v. State , 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002) () (quoting Evans v. State , 725 N.E.2d 850, 851 (Ind. 2000) ). However, the test is not whether a worse offender could be imagined, but whether the defendant belongs to the class of offenses and offenders who...
To continue reading
Request your trial