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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT