COA remands after trial court failed to explain reasons for sentence

The Court of Appeals of Indiana has overturned the aggregate 60-year sentence of a Union County man convicted of child molestation because the trial court did not explain its reasoning for the consecutive sentences.

Christopher Richardson was charged with molesting his daughter. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

The Union Circuit Court sentenced Richardson to 30 years for each count of the Class A felony to be served consecutively. Also, the court sentenced the defendant to four years for the Class C felony to be served concurrently with one of his sentences for the Class A felony.

In total, Richardson was sentenced to a 60-year term of imprisonment.

Richardson appealed, arguing the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentence was erroneous.

The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions but reversed the sentence in Christopher Richardson v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-1955.

Reviewing the sentencing proceeding, the appellate panel found the trial court did not specify any aggravating or mitigating factors that were considered when determining Richardson’s sentence.

The prosecution highlighted the age of the victim and Richardson’s exploitation of his position of trust as the girl’s father. The defense argued the daughter’s age should not be considered as an aggravating factor because it was a material element of the crime. Also, defense counsel pointed out Richardson’s lack of a “significant criminal history” and the impact the incarceration would have on his current wife and stepdaughter.

However, when Union Circuit Judge Matthew Cox imposed the sentence, he only noted the court was adhering to the “legislative advisory sentence on all three counts.” In addition, the court did not include any statement of aggravators and mitigators in its written sentencing statement.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals found the trial court had erred. The appellate court remanded, citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007), which held that remanding for resentencing may be the appropriate remedy when it is uncertain whether the trial court would impose the same sentence.

“In the instant action, the trial court failed to enumerate any aggravating or mitigating factors with respect to Richardson’s sentence,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the court. “While the parties proffered proposed aggravating and mitigating factors for the trial court to consider, it is not clear which, if any, the trial court found compelling. Thus, we are left uncertain as to whether the trial court would impose the same sentence absent its error.”