Witmer v. State

800 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2003) · Supreme Court of Indiana · December 23, 2003 · No. No. 20S03-0312-CR-614

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Alex Witmer's consecutive sentences for robbery and murder. The court held that racial motivation may constitute an aggravating circumstance in sentencing and concluded that the sentence remained appropriate despite one improper aggravator identified by the trial court.

Court
Supreme Court of Indiana
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Shepard; Shepard, Chief Justice; Dickson, Justice; Sullivan, Justice; Boehm, Justice; Rucker, Justice
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
December 23, 2003
Docket number
No. 20S03-0312-CR-614
Procedural posture
Witmer pleaded guilty to robbery and murder pursuant to an agreement under which the State withdrew its request for the death penalty. The trial court imposed consecutive maximum sentences. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected most of Witmer's sentencing challenges, concluded that the depreciating-the-seriousness aggravator was improper, and affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolution of those issues, while separately addressing whether racial motivation could support sentence enhancement.
Standard of review
When a trial court relies on an erroneous aggravating circumstance, an appellate court may affirm the sentence if it can say with confidence that the same sentence would be appropriate without the erroneous aggravator.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Indiana
Parties
Alex Witmer v. State of Indiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether racial motivation in selecting a murder victim may constitute an aggravating circumstance supporting an enhanced sentence.
  2. Whether the sentence could be affirmed despite the trial court's reliance on an improper aggravating circumstance concerning depreciation of the seriousness of the crime.
  3. Whether the trial court properly assessed the remaining aggravating and mitigating circumstances and imposed consecutive maximum sentences.

Holdings

  1. Racial motivation in the commission or selection of a victim may constitute a nonexclusive aggravating circumstance supporting an enhanced sentence under Indiana law.
  2. An appellate court may affirm a sentence that includes an erroneous aggravating circumstance when it can say with confidence that the same sentence is appropriate without that aggravator.
  3. The trial court adequately assessed and weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and properly imposed consecutive enhanced sentences.

Key quotations

The sentencing statute's list of enumerated aggravating circumstances is not exclusive, of course, and we say without hesitation that racially motivated crimes are intolerable and may constitute an aggravating circumstance. (573)
Where a trial court has used an erroneous aggravator, as occurred here, the court on appeal can nevertheless affirm the sentence if it can say with confidence that the same sentence is appropriate without it. (572)
Witmer and Powell were predators who attacked an innocent victim because of bigotry and lack of respect for human life. (574)

Factual background

At age sixteen, Witmer robbed Preston Hall at gunpoint during a drug transaction. After turning eighteen, Witmer drove Jason Powell around Elkhart while discussing shooting an African-American person to earn a spider-web tattoo. Witmer drove toward seventeen-year-old Sasezley Richardson, whom neither man knew, while Powell fired ten to twelve shots from Witmer's rifle; Richardson died from a gunshot wound to the head. Witmer then helped dispose of the rifle and did not render aid.

Procedural history

The State charged Witmer with robbery and later sought the death penalty for his role in the racially motivated murder of Sasezley Richardson. Under a plea agreement, Witmer pleaded guilty in exchange for withdrawal of the death-penalty request. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years for robbery and sixty-five years for murder, consecutively, based on several aggravating circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed despite finding one aggravator improper, and the Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…