ILNews

COA finds trial court’s error in sentencing was harmless

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court’s error in considering an arrest record as evidence of criminal history was harmless, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled, because the aggravators and mitigators would have led the lower court to impose the same sentence.

Dennis Vermillion was convicted of two counts of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor after an incident in 2009 with his friend’s 14-year-old daughter, S.H. The court sentenced Vermillion to eight years – five years executed and three years suspended to probation – on each count, to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 16 years.

In Dennis Vermillion v. State of Indiana, 13A01-1201-CR-17, Vermillion appealed and the COA affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

On his appeal, Vermillion raised numerous arguments regarding his sentence. He claimed the trial court erred in ordering consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. Also, he argued his total 16-year sentence exceeds the statutory cap for consecutive sentences and his sentence is inappropriate.

The COA found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences based on the facts of this case where two separate and distinct crimes were committed against S.H.

However, the COA found that the trial court did abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence greater than what is allowed by the statute. The court pointed out that because it is undisputed that Vermillion’s convictions are violent crimes and that his crimes constitute a single episode of criminal conduct, his sentence cannot exceed the advisory 10-year sentence for a Class B felony.

In regards to the appropriateness of his sentence, Vermillion argues that the trial court improperly considered past charged offenses that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement as well as uncharged misconduct as aggravators.

Again, the COA found the trial court erred in considering Vermillion’s arrest record as evidence of his criminal history. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a record of arrest, without more, may not be properly considered as evidence of criminal history.

Yet, the COA concluded the error was harmless since the evidence may be considered as it relates to Vermillion’s character. Further, it believes the lower court would have imposed the same sentence in light of the remaining aggravators and mitigators.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT