finding of mitigating factors in Indiana

2021Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002).

2020Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002).

1996Although a trial court is not required to make a finding of mitigating factors, nor explain why it has chosen not to do so, Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind.1993), if the court does find mitigators, it must state the reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.

1995The finding of mitigating factors "is discretionary with the trial court," and the "trial court is not required to find the presence of mitigating factors." Fugate, supra, at 1374 .

2017Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993) (citing Graham v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (Ind. 1989)).

2017Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993) (citing Graham v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (Ind. 1989)).

2018In support of this argument, he contends that his decision to admit and waive phase two of his trial "saved the trial court, the jury, and the State significant time and resources." (Norris' Br. 24). " 'The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.' " Page v. State , 878 N.E.2d 404 , 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting O'Neill v. State , 719 N.E.2d 1243 , 1244 (Ind. 1999) ), trans. denied .

2007“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” O’Neill v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1243, 1244 (Ind.1999).

2015Storey v. State, 875 N.E.2d 243, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

2014Storey v. State, 875 N.E.2d 243, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

2021Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). “‘If the trial court does not find the existence of a mitigating factor after it has been argued by counsel, the trial court is not obligated to explain why it has found that the factor does not exist.’” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493 (quoting Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993)).

2013“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000)). “[T]he trial court is not obligated to explain why it did not find a factor to be significantly mitigating,” it simply “may ‘not ignore facts in the record that would mitigate an offense[.]’” Id. (quoting Sherwood v. State, 749 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind. 2001)).

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999)).

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999)).

2014“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000).

2013“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000).

2000(Appellant’s Br. at 12.) “The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Wingett v. State, 640 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind.1994).

1999“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Wingett v. State, 640 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind.1994).

2021Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). “‘If the trial court does not find the existence of a mitigating factor after it has been argued by counsel, the trial court is not obligated to explain why it has found that the factor does not exist.’” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493 (quoting Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993)).

2017“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court is not required to accept the defendant’s arguments as to what constitutes a mitigating factor.” Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999)).

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter, 711 N.E.2d at 838).

2014McKinney, 873 N.E.2d at 645 (citing Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. 2005)).

2007Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind.2005).

2002Georgopulos v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind.2000).

2002Georgopulos v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind.2000).

2021Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). “‘If the trial court does not find the existence of a mitigating factor after it has been argued by counsel, the trial court is not obligated to explain why it has found that the factor does not exist.’” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493 (quoting Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993)).

2017“An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A05-1703-CR-591 | December 18, 2017 Page 7 of 10 probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (quotation omitted). [22] The finding of mitigating factors is discretionary with the trial court.

2000“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Hurt v. State, 657 N.E.2d 112, 115 (Ind.1995).

1995Id.

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999)).

2014McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1121 (Ind. 2001) (citing Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 1997)). “‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating [factor] requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly 8 supported by the record.’” Id. (citing Carter, 711 N.E.2d at 838 ).

2000Mitigating Circumstances Mendoza also contends that the trial court did not properly consider his proffered mitigating factors. “[A] trial court is not required to make a finding of mitigating factors, nor explain why it had chosen not to do so.” Morgan v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1067, 1073 (Ind.1996).

2000Morgan, 675 N.E.2d at 1073 ; Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3.

1998Magers v. State, 621 N.E.2d 323, 324 (Ind.1993).

1994Id.

2020See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

2015A sentencing court is required to “consider all evidence of mitigating factors offered by a defendant, [but] the finding of mitigating factors rests within the court’s discretion.” Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125, 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2013“The finding of mitigating factors is not mandatory and rests within the discretion of the trial court.” Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000)). “[T]he trial court is not obligated to explain why it did not find a factor to be significantly mitigating,” it simply “may ‘not ignore facts in the record that would mitigate an offense[.]’” Id. (quoting Sherwood v. State, 749 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind. 2001)).

2013A court’s “‘failure to find mitigating circumstances that are clearly supported by the record may imply that the trial court failed to properly consider them.’” Id. (quoting Sherwood, 749 N.E.2d at 38 ).

2005See, Clark v. State, 808 N.E.2d 1183, 1195 (Ind.2004) (the finding of mitigating factors is within the trial court's discretion."); Bunch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind.1998) ("'the trial court is not required to regard the defendant's evidence as mitigating simply because the defendant does.").