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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT