ILNews

Justices disagree on revising man's sentence

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court used a man's appeal of his sentence for neglect of a dependent to examine how appellate courts review sentences; the court remanded the case so the man's sentence could be reduced.

In Rudy Wayne Cardwell v. State of Indiana, No. 10S05-0811-CR-588, the justices reviewed their decision in Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), in terms of appellate review of sentencing. The court unanimously agreed that assigning relative weights to properly found facts can often present issues that don't have right or wrong answers, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. The justices also determined that ultimately the length of the aggregate sentence and how long it's served are the issues that matter in reviewing sentences. Appellate review should identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improving the sentencing statutes, wrote Justice Boehm, but review's principal role isn't to achieve a perceived "correct" result in each case.

With that review and explanation of appellate review of sentencing, four of the justices remanded Rudy Wayne Cardwell's case to the trial court to reduce his sentence. Cardwell received an aggregate term of 34 years for convictions of two counts of neglect of a dependent for burning his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter's hands with hot water and then not immediately seeking medical attention for her burns.

The majority recommended a sentence of an aggregate term of 17 years after reviewing the evidence and the 18-month sentence his girlfriend, Star Gentry, received for her conviction of neglect of a dependent for failing to get prompt medical attention for her daughter.

"Finally, although Cardwell's sentence is not required to be compared to Gentry's, Cardwell's behavior as to the second count was substantially the same, or even less culpable than Gentry's," wrote Justice Boehm. "... But the disparity between Cardwell's aggregate 34-year sentence and Gentry's 1 1/2 years is stark."

Justice Brent Dickson dissented from the majority in revising Cardwell's sentence, noting the state didn't file identical charges against Gentry and Cardwell and that the jury convicted Gentry of a lesser offense. The jury found Cardwell guilty on both of the charges filed by the state and the trial court determined the appropriate sentence to be 17 years on each count, served consecutively.

Justice Dickson wrote the majority's decision to reduce Cardwell's sentence is greatly influenced by the disparity between his sentence and Gentry's. The justice also wrote that appellate review of a sentence - especially after a judge provides a thoughtful and detailed sentencing evaluation, which happened in this case - may serve as a disincentive to cautious and measured fashioning of sentences by trial judges.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT