Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (2026)
Presentence hearing
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. Before sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing. The person is entitled to subpoena and call witnesses and to present information in his own behalf. The court shall make a record of the hearing, including:
(1) a transcript of the hearing;
(2) a copy of the presentence report; and
(3) if the court finds aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances, a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007).
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007). “” I.C. § 35-38-1-3. This language suggests a legislative acknowledgement that a sentencing statement identifying aggravators and mitigators retains its status as an integral part of the trial court’s sentencing procedure.”
Trusley v. State, 818 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “She notes Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3 provides "Before sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing," and further notes the legislature has provided for a jury hearing in certain habitual offender…”
Joshua Gomillia v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2014). “2d at 490 (quoting I.C. § 35-38-1-3). Second, double enhancement aside, the question remains whether the use of a material element of an offense as a reason for the sentence a trial court imposes is “improper as a matter of law.”
Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3. The rule that has developed in Indiana criminal sentencing is that enhanced sentences may only be imposed upon the judge's express determination of one or more aggravating factors.”
Henderson v. State, 848 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" The narrow language of Indiana Code § 35-38-1-3 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Ronnie Jamel Rice v. State of Indiana, 6 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. 2014). “However, the Legislature left intact Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3, which provides: Before sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing.”
Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. 1990). “Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 ; Schiro v. State (1983), Ind.”
McMahon v. State, 856 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “However, the legislature left intact Indiana Code § 35-38-1-3, which requires the trial court to conduct a sentencing hearing and make a record of the hearing, including, "if the court finds aggravating circumstances or mitigating cireumstances, a statement of the court's…”
Rodriguez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “However, if the trial court finds aggravating and mitigating circumstances, concludes they balance, and imposes the presumptive sentence, then pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-3, the trial court must *555 provide a statement of its reasons for imposing the presumptive…”
Townsend v. State, 860 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3 ("if the court finds aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances, [the trial court shall record] a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes").”
Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007). “not sought, an opinion by another panel of the Court of Appeals which held in part, “ ‘we presume that by keeping Indiana Code § 35-38-1-3 in place, [requiring a sentencing statement if the court finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances] the legislature intended to require…”
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3 (1988). In imposing the death sentence, the trial court found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charged aggravating circumstances listed in the death penalty statutethat the defendant had intentionally committed the murder of Marie…”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3(3) — 13 cases
Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Ratliff v. State, 741 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Corcoran v. State, 739 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 2000).
Shoup v. State, 570 N.E.2d 1298 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Madden v. State, 697 N.E.2d 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3(8) — 3 cases
Hollen v. State, 761 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 2002).
Criss v. State, 512 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. 1987).
Downer v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1052 (Ind. 1986).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.