Pickens v. State

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly relied on the proposition that a reduced or suspended sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime as an aggravating circumstance.
2. Whether the trial court improperly used the same restraining-order violations both as an independent aggravator and as evidence of Pickens's character.
3. Whether an OWI arrest and admitted marijuana use could be considered as evidence bearing on Pickens's character despite not establishing a criminal record.
4. Whether the trial court improperly considered prior abuse of the victim when the evidence consisted primarily of testimony from the victim's family.
5. Whether the trial court improperly determined that Pickens's remorse was not genuine.
6. Whether the trial court adequately explained its reliance on statements concerning the impact of the crime on the victim's family.
7. Whether the sentence could be affirmed after excluding the improper aggravators.

Holdings

1. The trial court improperly considered that imposing a reduced or suspended sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime because that factor may be used only to support refusing to impose a sentence below the presumptive sentence, and the record did not show that the court was considering a sentence below the presumptive term.
2. The trial court properly considered the restraining-order violations as an aggravating circumstance and also as evidence bearing on Pickens's character.
3. The trial court did not improperly consider Pickens's OWI arrest and admitted marijuana use as relevant to his character, although an arrest standing alone cannot establish a history of criminal or delinquent activity for sentence enhancement.
4. The trial court properly considered Pickens's prior abuse of the victim because the rules of evidence generally do not apply at sentencing, the defendant had an opportunity to question the family members about the accusations, and the finding was not clearly erroneous.
5. The trial court properly assessed Pickens's remorse as insincere, and the Supreme Court would accept that credibility determination absent evidence of an impermissible consideration.
6. The trial court improperly considered the victim's family's statements as an aggravating circumstance because it did not identify an impact of a destructive nature not normally associated with murder and foreseeable to Pickens.
7. The sixty-year sentence could be affirmed because six valid aggravating circumstances remained, the trial court's oral remarks showed that it principally relied on those valid aggravators, and the Supreme Court was confident that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence without the two improper aggravators.

Key quotations

Factual background

Pickens pleaded guilty to murder and received a sixty-year sentence. The sentencing court identified aggravating circumstances including violations of a restraining order, obtaining access to the victim by deceit, the nature of the shooting, prior abuse of the victim, disregard for the law reflected by marijuana use and an OWI arrest, lack of genuine remorse, victim-family impact, and the claim that a reduced sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime. The court also found mitigating circumstances, including the guilty plea, the absence of convictions, and the likelihood that the circumstances would not recur.

Procedural history

The trial court sentenced Pickens to sixty years in the Indiana Department of Correction after enhancing the fifty-five-year presumptive sentence by five years. Pickens appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Indiana under former Indiana Appellate Rule 4(A)(7), arguing that several aggravators were improper and that the sentence could not be sustained without them. The Supreme Court affirmed.