Reginald Anthony Tate v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 45A04-1705-CR-998

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; September 20, 2017; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Reginald Anthony Tate appealed his thirty-year sentence for child molesting as a Level 1 felony. He raised three issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of past allegations of sexual abuse; (2) whether the court improperly considered aggravating circumstances while overlooking significant mitigating factors; and (3) whether the thirty-year advisory sentence was inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. 

The facts indicate that Tate had been in a long-term relationship with N.D. and was trusted to care for her younger siblings. On August 11, 2016, while babysitting, he sexually assaulted twelve-year-old S.C., leading to a police investigation where his DNA was found on multiple swabs obtained during a rape kit examination. He faced multiple charges, including additional counts related to prior incidents with S.C.

On March 1, 2017, Tate entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to Level 1 felony child molesting, with the State dismissing other charges and capping his sentence at thirty years. During the April 5, 2017 sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence of prior abuse allegations, which Tate contested; however, the trial court stated it placed no weight on those allegations in determining the sentence. Ultimately, the court affirmed the thirty-year sentence.

Tate contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence related to allegations against C.D.W. during sentencing, claiming the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. However, the court maintains that the admission of such evidence is at the trial court's discretion, and under Indiana Evidence Rule 101(d)(2), standard evidentiary rules do not apply at sentencing. The rationale is that sentencing requires a broader scope of information about the defendant's life beyond mere guilt. Previous cases have established that uncharged crimes can be considered during sentencing. The court ultimately concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence, and even if it had, the error would be harmless since the court indicated it gave no weight to the allegations.

Tate also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in identifying aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Sentencing decisions are generally at the trial court's discretion, and a court may only abuse this discretion by relying on unsupported aggravating factors or by omitting significant mitigating factors. Tate specifically disputes the trial court's use of his criminal history as an aggravating circumstance, which is statutorily recognized. The court explains that while Tate believes too much weight was placed on his history, the relative weight of these factors is not reviewable. Furthermore, Tate claims that his expressed remorse should have been considered a significant mitigating factor; however, the trial court is not required to accept his claims of remorse as genuine. Therefore, the court finds no abuse of discretion in how the trial court handled these matters.

Reversal of Tate's thirty-year advisory sentence is not warranted, even if the trial court made errors in evaluating mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Tate contends that his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his crime and his character. Indiana's Constitution allows for the review and revision of criminal sentences, and the appellate court operates under a deferential standard, only revising a sentence if it is deemed inappropriate based on the offense's nature and the offender's character.

Tate was convicted of child molesting, a Level 1 felony with a sentencing range of twenty to forty years, and received the advisory sentence of thirty years. To challenge this, he bears a significant burden. The court found that the nature of Tate's offense was severe, as he violated a position of trust by molesting a child he knew well and had repeatedly abused her. Victim impact statements highlighted the trauma inflicted on the victim, who expressed feelings of fear and distrust.

Tate’s character does not support a lesser sentence either, as he has a history of violent crime, including an attempted murder charge and multiple misdemeanors, indicating a pattern of violence. The court concluded that Tate failed to demonstrate that his advisory sentence was inappropriate. The judgment was affirmed, with both judges concurring.