Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (2026)

Presentence hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 4× “” 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). · cites it 12× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 2× “" 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). · cites it 4× “" 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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 ; Schiro v. State (1983), Ind.”
McMahon v. State, 856 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 4× “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 statute—that the defendant had intentionally committed the murder of Marie…”
Show all 128 citing cases →
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.