ILNews

Court of Appeals revises burglary sentence

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals today revised a 40-year sentence handed down to a 19-year-old, citing inconsistencies between the trial court's oral and written sentencing statements.

In Nathan D. Feeney v. State of Indiana, 79A02-0609-CR-823, Feeney appealed his cumulative 40-year sentence for convictions of 10 counts of burglary as a Class B felony, which consisted of four consecutive and six concurrent 10-year sentences, because he believed the sentences to be too harsh given the nature of his offenses and his character.

At 18 years of age, Feeney was charged with 43 felony counts and pleaded guilty to 10 counts of burglary as a Class B felony, with the state dismissing all other counts.

At his sentencing hearing, the court said his young age could be a mitigating factor in where "you've made a mistake, but these are not mistakes." It also said the number of burglaries committed required more than the minimum sentence and consecutive sentences.

In its written sentencing statement, the trial court found the aggravating factors - the number of burglaries, Feeney's lack of candor, and the fact he had been selling drugs - balanced with his age as a mitigating factor. He was sentenced to serve 30 years at the Indiana Department of Correction, four years with the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and six years on supervised probation.

In the opinion, Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote the Court of Appeals would typically remand a case like this to the trial court; however, this is not an ordinary case. In revising the sentence, the Court of Appeals citied the differences between what was said at the oral sentencing and what was written in the sentencing statement about Feeney's age being a mitigating factor.

Typically, Indiana appellate courts have held that when a trial court finds a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, there is no reason to impose consecutive sentences. When there is conflict between the oral and written sentencing statements, the Court of Appeals can credit the statement that more accurately reflects the court's finding; however, "we cannot decipher whether the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences represents a simple error of law or if it implies a finding that the aggravators actually outweigh the mitigators," wrote Judge Vaidik.

Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), the Court of Appeals revised Feeney's sentence to 14 years: 10 served in the Indiana Department of Corrections, two years at Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and two years on supervised probation. The Court of Appeals said Feeney is surely in need of reformation, but 40 years is unduly harsh and he may find himself taken under the guidance of experienced criminals while in prison.
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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT