Knight v. State Of Ind., 02S03-1006-CR-339.

Decision Date30 June 2010
Docket NumberNo. 02S03-1006-CR-339.,02S03-1006-CR-339.
Citation930 N.E.2d 20
PartiesAustin KNIGHT, Appellant (Defendant below),v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Anthony S. Churchward, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Marjorie Lawyer-Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 02A03-0811-CR-532

RUCKER, Justice.

Austin Knight pleaded guilty to several felony offenses for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of seventy years. Under our constitutional authority we revise the sentence to a total aggregate term of forty years.

Facts and Procedural History

In the early morning hours of February 19, 2007, seventeen-year-old Knight and three other men-Malcolm Ellis, Johnnie Walker, and Antonio Wright-used keys they had previously stolen from an apartment complex office to gain entry to two separate units in the complex. Upon entering the first apartment, the four men found a lone resident asleep in her bed. The men tied the resident up, stuffed a rag in her mouth, covered her face, and then proceeded to ransack the apartment, stealing money and property from her. Before leaving, one of the men shot the resident in the legs more than 10 times at close range with a pellet gun. The resident's goldfish was also shot and killed.

The men then entered a second apartment and encountered four occupants therein. Brandishing guns, the men rounded up the occupants from their two bedrooms and ordered them to the floor in the main room. One of the four occupants was ordered to drive to an ATM to make a withdrawal. The intruders remaining at the apartment ordered one of the female occupants to disrobe. After taking money and property from the occupants and after the others had returned, the men heard sirens and fled. Three of the four men, including Knight, were apprehended nearby.

On February 22, 2007, the State charged Knight with: (1) Count I, burglary as a class A felony; (2) Count II, robbery as a class B felony; (3) Count III, criminal confinement as a class B felony; (4) Count IV, burglary as a class B felony; (5) Count V, robbery as a class B felony; (6) Count VI, robbery as a class B felony; (7) Count VII, criminal confinement as a class B felony; (8) Count VIII, criminal confinement as a class B felony; (9) Count IX, criminal confinement as a class B felony; (10) Count X, robbery as a class B felony; and (11) Count XI, criminal confinement as a class B felony.

On July 6, 2007, Knight entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count I, burglary as a class A felony and Count IV, burglary as a class B felony with the remaining counts being dismissed. Appellant's App. at 43-45. The State agreed to a sentence of twenty years executed on Count I and ten years executed on Count IV, with the sentences running consecutively for a total executed term of thirty years. In return Knight was required to testify truthfully in any proceedings the State brought against Knight's three codefendants. Id. The trial court took the plea agreement under advisement and scheduled a sentencing hearing for September 10, 2007, which was later continued until April 3, 2008. However on March 3, 2008, the plea agreement was rescinded upon the State's motion when Knight refused to testify against Antonio Wright, one of the codefendants.

Thereafter Knight pleaded guilty to all eleven counts without the benefit of a plea agreement. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Knight as follows: thirty years on Count I and ten years on Count II to be served concurrently; ten years on Count IX to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts I and II; and six years on each of Counts IV, V, VI, X, and XI, to be served consecutively to each other and consecutive with the sentences imposed on Counts I, II, and IX, for a total executed term of seventy years.1 Knight appealed contending the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Knight v. State, No. 02A03-0811-CR-532, 2009 WL 1687918 (Ind. Ct.App. June 17, 2009). We grant transfer.

Discussion

For burglary as a class A felony as charged in Count I and robbery as a class B felony as charged in Count II the trial court imposed the advisory sentences of thirty years and ten years respectively. As for confinement as a class B felony as charged in Count IX the trial court imposed the advisory sentence of ten years. And for robbery as a class B felony as charged in Counts IV, V, VI and X and confinement as a class B felony as charged in Count XI, the trial court imposed six year minimum sentences. There is no question that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion in this case. Nonetheless, [a]lthough a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in determining a sentence, Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution ‘authorize [ ] independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court.’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007) (alterations in original) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.2006)). Our appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows us to “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Duran v. State Of Ind., 45S03-0910-CR-430.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 30, 2010
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2017
    ...with Taylor's offenses and character, we consider our caselaw in line with our principal role of leavening outliers. See Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind. 2010). While we have been clear that LWOP sentences are not always inappropriate for juveniles, see Conley, 972 N.E.2d at 876–77,......
  • Carter v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 31, 2013
    ...the context of App. R. 7(B) review, our Supreme Court has noted that “we ‘need not compare’ sentences of codefendants[.]” Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind.2010) (quoting Dennis v. State, 908 N.E.2d 209, 214 (Ind.2009)). Even if we were inclined to do so, as detailed above, Carter's r......
  • Bowers v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 3, 2012
    ...codefendants, ‘we are not precluded’ from ‘compa[ring] sentences among those convicted of the same or similar crimes.’ “ Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind.2010) (citations omitted). Here, the evidence shows that Bowers pleaded guilty for causing three deaths, while Woods pleaded guilt......
  • 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