Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Accordingly, “an inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.” Id. [17] With respect to Whittington’s argument concerning the trial court’s consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, we note that sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. 2017“Additionally, a defendant 1 “An inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). | 14 | 17 |
Anglemyer v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . 2015Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 ; see also King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (observing that “an inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant”). | 4 | 6 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Allen v. State, 875 N.E.2d 783 , 788 n. 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 2016See Allen v. State, 875 N.E.2d 783 , 788 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). | 2 | 2 |
Cornelius Hines v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2018Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). 2017Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). | 2 | 2 |
Anglemyer v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Accordingly, “an inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.” Id. 2017Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . | 1 | 4 |
Daniel E. Messel v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018Messel v. State, 80 N.E.3d 230, 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. [7] Taylor argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the entirety of the previously suspended sentences in the probation cases. | 1 | 1 |
David J. Harman v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see also Harman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 209, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Reid v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that a court “may 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 of the offender.” Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.2007) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. State
green
1 sentence2019The Court stated as follows: While we do not condone Frye’s past or current violations of the law, we cannot conclude that those transgressions even when aggregated demonstrate a character of such recalcitrance or depravity to justify a sentence of 40 years. 837 N.E.2d at 1015 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sterlen Shane Keller v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016Here, the trial court sentenced Forrest to two years for his Class D felony conviction and sixty-five days for his Class C misdemeanor conviction and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for a total sentence of two years executed. 3 To the extent Forrest argues that the sentence or mitigators should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “‘an inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.’” Keller v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1099 , 1121 n.11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 26 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gleason v. State
green
1 sentence2013Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.