Robert B. Scoggins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 45A03-1608-CR-1902

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; March 6, 2017; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert B. Scoggins appealed his conviction for level 3 felony aggravated battery and his eight-year sentence. He claimed the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim's injuries and argued that his sentence was inappropriate due to unrecognized mitigating factors. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence or in sentencing, concluding that Scoggins failed to demonstrate that his sentence was inappropriate. 

The incident occurred on December 19, 2014, when Scoggins assaulted his long-term girlfriend, Miriam Murray, after a heated argument. Scoggins physically attacked Murray, hitting her with his fists and a chair, resulting in severe injuries, including the rupture of her right eye, which ultimately led to its removal. Scoggins faced multiple charges related to the assault, including aggravated battery and misdemeanor battery against Murray's sister, Gwendolyn Lambert. During the trial, the prosecution sought to admit four photographs of Murray’s injuries, which Scoggins contested. The court admitted the evidence, allowing only two of the photographs to be published in court.

Scoggins testified at trial that he acted in self-defense when Murray approached him with a knife, leading to an altercation involving a chair, which resulted in injuries to Murray. The jury convicted Scoggins of aggravated battery but acquitted him of a misdemeanor charge. Citing double jeopardy principles, the trial court entered a conviction for level 3 felony aggravated battery. During sentencing, the State sought a fourteen-year term, emphasizing the victim's trust in Scoggins, his lack of remorse, and his eleven prior arrests. Scoggins, who is sixty-four and has no prior convictions, argued for leniency based on his age. The trial court recognized mitigating factors related to the crime but found aggravating factors in Scoggins’s prior arrests and his relationship with the victim, ultimately sentencing him to eight years in the Department of Correction.

Scoggins later challenged the trial court's admission of four photographs depicting Murray's injuries, arguing they were irrelevant since the severity of her injuries was not disputed. However, the court determined that the photographs were admissible as they had strong probative value to demonstrate the severity of the injuries and to counter Scoggins's self-defense claim. The court concluded that the evidence did not violate Ind. Evid. Rule 403 since it was relevant to proving the aggravated battery charge and assessing the credibility of the self-defense argument.

Scoggins argues that the photographs presented during the trial, while relevant, had probative value that was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, as per Indiana Evidence Rule 403. The court clarified that admissibility hinges on whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial rather than merely prejudicial. The court found the photographs critical in countering Scoggins’s self-defense claim, noting that only two images (exhibits 15 and 18) were shown to the jury and were not close-ups. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.

Regarding sentencing, Scoggins contends that the trial court erred by not recognizing certain mitigating factors, specifically his age (64) and lack of criminal history. However, sentencing decisions are largely at the trial court's discretion, and the court is not required to accept a defendant's arguments about mitigating factors. Scoggins, despite claiming low recidivism risk and no convictions, has eleven prior arrests related to the current offense, including battery and domestic violence. The court concluded that he failed to demonstrate that his age and lack of convictions were significant mitigating factors. Consequently, it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentencing.

Lastly, Scoggins challenges the appropriateness of his sentence, which can be reviewed under Indiana Constitution Article 7, Section 6, allowing for independent assessment by the appellate court. However, Scoggins carries the burden to prove that his sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the offense and his character. The appellate court must give due consideration to the trial court's expertise in sentencing matters.

The advisory sentence for a level 3 felony is nine years, with a range of three to sixteen years. Scoggins was sentenced to eight years and argues for the minimum sentence of three years. Appellate review aims to correct outlier sentences and provide guidance rather than ensure a 'correct' result in every case. A defendant has a heavy burden to prove that a sentence below the advisory is inappropriate. 

Scoggins’s offense involved unprovoked aggression towards Murray, where he punched her and struck her with a chair, leading to severe injuries including the loss of her right eye. The nature of the offense does not indicate that the sentence is inappropriate. Regarding Scoggins's character, he has no prior convictions but has eleven arrests, five of which are for battery, including domestic battery. He has a history of drug use, admitted to using substances prior to the offense, and showed no remorse, instead blaming the victim. The court concludes that Scoggins has not demonstrated that his sentence is inappropriate and affirms his conviction and sentence.