Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
John Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Citation: Not availableDocket: 18A-CR-1682
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; November 27, 2018; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
MEMORANDUM DECISION establishes that it cannot be cited as precedent except to support defenses like res judicata or collateral estoppel. John Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr. pled guilty to one count of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, leading to a fifteen-year sentence. Johnson argues that the trial court erred by considering his eleven victims as an aggravating factor and claims his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and personal character. The court affirmed the sentence, citing that the aggravating factors, including Johnson's criminal history and the number of victims, outweighed any mitigating circumstances. The facts reveal that Johnson engaged in multiple armed robbery incidents, including threatening victims and causing serious injury, which contributed to the charges against him. The plea agreement allowed Johnson to plead guilty to reduced charges, with a stipulated factual basis presented to the trial court. The trial court ultimately imposed consecutive five-year terms, emphasizing the severity of Johnson's actions and their impact on the victims. Johnson challenged the trial court's finding of eleven victims as an aggravating circumstance during his sentencing, claiming abuse of discretion because only nine were included in the stipulated factual basis and the court failed to demonstrate harm to each victim. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the stipulated basis indeed listed eleven victims and Johnson had agreed they were victims, thus no specific harm needed to be established. Regarding the appropriateness of his fifteen-year sentence, Johnson argued that it was excessive. The appellate court reviews sentences under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), emphasizing that sentencing is largely discretionary, requiring the defendant to prove inappropriateness in light of the offense and character. Johnson received consecutive five-year sentences for a Level 5 felony battery and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery, which were above the advisory but below the maximum. The nature of Johnson’s crimes, characterized by premeditated robbery and excessive violence, justified consecutive sentencing, supported by precedent indicating multiple victims as valid aggravation. Johnson’s criminal history, which includes juvenile delinquency and numerous adult convictions, further undermined his claim for a reduced sentence, as he had shown a persistent inability to conform to societal norms. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Johnson failed to establish that his sentence was inappropriate.