MEMORANDUM DECISION
Apr 17 2015, 9:56 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael J. Spencer Gregory F. Zoeller
Monroe Co. Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kenneth E. Aker, Jr., April 17, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
53A01-1409-CR-411
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court III
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kenneth G. Todd,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Cause No. 53C03-1301-FB-106
Friedlander, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 1 of 12
[1] Kenneth Aker, Jr. appeals the sentence he received as a result of his plea of
guilty to the offense of neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury,
a class B felony.1 Aker presents the following restated issues for review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its identification
of aggravating circumstances?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its identification
of mitigating circumstances?
3. Is Aker’s sentence inappropriate in light of the offense and
his character?
[2] We affirm.
[3] The facts supporting Aker’s conviction are that since 2001, he was employed as
caregiver to T.W., who was fifty-three years old at the time of this offense.
T.W. was afflicted with cerebral palsy and was unable to speak or care for
herself. On January 26, 2013, T.W. was transported to Bloomington Hospital
by emergency medical personnel after Aker called for assistance, reporting that
T.W. was experiencing respiratory distress and became unresponsive. Upon
her arrival, T.W. was examined by hospital personnel, who observed that she
was in very poor health and had severe bedsores covering the lower half of her
body. T.W. was pronounced dead shortly after her arrival.
1
The version of the governing statute, i.e., Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-4(b)(2) (West, Westlaw 2013), in effect
at the time this offense was committed classified it as a class B felony. This statute has since been revised and
in its current form reclassifies this as a Level 3 felony. See I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(2) (West, Westlaw current with
legislation of the 2015 First Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly effective through March 24,
2015). The new classification, however, applies only to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2014. See id.
Because this offense was committed before then, it retains the former classification.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 2 of 12
[4] When questioned at the time, Aker claimed that T.W. had been afflicted with
bedsores since he began caring for her in 2001, but that the sores normally
healed after he applied topical medication. He claimed that in early January of
2013, T.W.’s bedsores “got out of hand.” Transcript at 52. Although Aker
admitted that he should have sought medical assistance because of T.W.’s
condition, he failed to do so. He noted that in the week prior to her death,
T.W. exhibited flulike symptoms and did not eat as much as she normally did.
An autopsy performed on T.W. revealed she died of malnutrition and a partial
bowel obstruction.
[5] Aker was charged with neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury,
as a class B felony. Aker entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to
plead guilty to the charge, in exchange for which the State agreed to an eight-
year cap on his sentence. Under the agreement, the trial court retained
discretion to determine the sentence within the agreed-upon range. Following a
hearing, the trial court sentenced Aker to eight years in the Department of
Correction, all executed.
1.
[6] Aker contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding an element of
the offense as an aggravating circumstance, i.e., that he neglected the care of a
person who was unable to care for herself.
[7] Trial courts must enter sentencing statements whenever a sentence for a felony
offense is imposed. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 3 of 12
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. The statement must include a reasonably detailed
recitation of the reasons for imposing the particular sentence selected. Id. If
there is a finding of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the statement
must identify all significant aggravating and mitigating circumstances with an
explanation of the characterization of the circumstances as either aggravating or
mitigating. Id.
[8] We review sentencing decisions only for an abuse of discretion, except for the
review-and-revise power provided for in Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. If the
sentence is within the statutory range for the particular offense, we must
determine only if there was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists
if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id.
[9] A trial court can abuse its discretion in sentencing in several ways, including
entering a sentencing statement that explains the reasons for imposing a
sentence accompanied by the finding of aggravating and mitigating factors that
are not supported by the record, entering a sentencing statement that omits
reasons clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or
citing reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Id. We will remand for
resentencing if we cannot say with confidence that the trial court would have
imposed the very same sentence had it considered the omitted reasons that are
clearly supported by the record for sentencing. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 4 of 12
[10] Aker contends that the trial court relied upon an improper aggravating
circumstance, which ultimately led to the imposition of two years less than the
advisory sentence instead of a lesser sentence within the statutory range. When
the trial court sentenced Aker, it found the following aggravating
circumstances: 1) The amount of suffering endured by the victim; and 2) what
Aker characterizes as the fact that the victim was incapable of caring for herself
and entrusted her care to him. The trial court found several mitigating
circumstances, including the following: 1) Aker presented a low risk of
reoffending, and the crime was unlikely to recur; 2) Aker was genuinely
remorseful; and 3) Aker’s criminal history was relatively mild and included “no
related prior convictions or prior criminal history … [t]hat would have any
bearing at all on his sentence in this case.” Transcript at 61.
[11] Aker challenges the aggravating factor that he describes as the fact that the
deceased victim was incapable of caring for herself and entrusted her care to
him. According to Aker, this is an element of his offense (i.e. “[a] person
having the care of a dependent, whether assumed voluntarily or because of a
legal obligation, who knowingly or intentionally …”). I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a).
Aker correctly observes that the trial court generally may not cite an element of
the crime as an aggravator. Gomillia v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2014).
[12] When articulating its findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the
trial court stated:
the worst thing about this case Mr. Aker is that this is a person
incapable of caring for themselves and entrusted to your care and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 5 of 12
regardless of your, your life experiences or this past event that
you say caused you to panic you did whatever your performance
of duties prior to this time get to the point where you neglected
the care of someone who was unable to care for themselves and
allow them to perish in your, in your care due to neglect.
Transcript at 64. Read in isolation, the foregoing can arguably be interpreted as
a finding that the victim was incapable of caring for herself and entrusted her
care to Aker, which is an element of the offense of which Aker was convicted.
Read in context, however, we are inclined to view this as the final portion of the
court’s comments finding the nature and circumstances of the crime as an
aggravator. The comments immediately preceding those reproduced above
included the following:
[O]n the other hand and by the way it is difficult to look at the autopsy
report[.] … The autopsy report indicates that there this [sic] large, I
can’t pronounce the word that Dr. Kohr uses, decubitus ulcer it says
that there was a severe excoriation of the thighs and perineum no
doubt related to the diarrhea that you described. He notes that in
addition to that which I find to be of some interest is that there was the
stomach contained only 50 milliliters of dark brown liquid and
particular [sic] matter indicating no food. The bladder was empty and
there was a large fecal impaction and then we have of course the sore.
So however we got to this point in you saying, you describing this as
things as getting out of hand and you panicking its apparent to the
Court that at some point you became inattentive to her and that her
last days on this earth were in fact painful and she couldn’t help but, I
don’t see how you could say she could help but suffer.
Id. at 62-63. We conclude that the comments to which Aker objects were a part
of the court’s evaluation of the nature and circumstances of Aker’s offense,
which the court found to be aggravating. Of course, it is appropriate for a trial
court to consider as an aggravating circumstance that the harm suffered by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 6 of 12
victim of the offense was significant and greater than the elements necessary to
prove the commission of the offense. See Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-7.1(a)(1)
(West, Westlaw current with legislation of the 2015 First Regular Session of the
119th General Assembly effective through March 24, 2015); Gomillia v. State, 13
N.E.3d 846. The trial court did not err in its finding of aggravating
circumstances.
2.
[13] Aker contends that the trial court abused its discretion in omitting as a
mitigating factor that Aker’s dependents would experience undue hardship as a
result of his incarceration. As indicated above, the trial court’s sentencing order
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482. An
abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is “clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. at 490 (quoting
K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). A trial court abuses its
discretion when it omits significant mitigating factors that are clearly supported
by the record and advanced for consideration. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d.
482. We note, however, that although a sentencing court must consider all
evidence of mitigating factors presented by a defendant, it is not obligated to
weigh or credit them in the manner a defendant suggests. Scott v. State, 840
N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Also, a sentencing court “need
not consider, and we will not remand for reconsideration of, alleged mitigating
circumstances that are highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 7 of 12
Creekmore v. State, 853 N.E.2d 523, 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), clarified on reh’g,
858 N.E.2d 238.
[14] With respect to the significant mitigating circumstance that Aker contends the
trial court omitted, our Supreme Court has stated, “[m]any persons convicted of
serious crimes have one or more children and, absent special circumstances,
trial courts are not required to find that imprisonment will result in an undue
hardship.” Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146, 1154 (Ind. 1999). The only
mention of Aker’s children in the context of mitigating circumstances came
during counsel’s final argument at the sentencing hearing, where he stated as
follows: “The other thing is he had two minor children that he had shared [sic]
of and that is a mitigating factor he should be able to be out to help provide and
support for those children.” Transcript at 60. The brief mention of Aker’s
children alludes to no “special circumstances” at all, much less those that would
compel the court to find as a mitigator that Aker’s incarceration would impose
“undue hardship” within the meaning of Dowdell. The trial court did not err in
the finding of mitigating circumstances.
3.
[15] Aker contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offense and his character. Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants
our Supreme Court the power to review and revise criminal sentences. See
Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 2015 WL 133288 (Jan.
12, 2015). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court authorized
this court to perform the same task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 8 of 12
2008). Per App. R. 7(B), we may revise a sentence “if after due consideration
of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Inman v.
State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7). “Sentencing review
under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State,
972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). Aker bears the burden on appeal of
persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d
864.
[16] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as appropriate “turns on
our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the
damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to
attempt to leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind.
2013). It is not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct”
sentence in each case. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274. Accordingly, “the
question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more
appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
(emphasis in original). Our Supreme Court has indicated that when analyzing
the appropriateness of a criminal sentence, there is “no right answer ... in any
given case.” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Cardwell v. State,
895 N.E.2d at 1224). Rather, appellate review and, where appropriate, revision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 9 of 12
“ultimately boils down to the appellate court’s ‘collective sense of what is
appropriate, not a product of a deductive reasoning process.’” Id. (quoting
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.
[17] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the
statutory ranges established for the classification of the relevant offenses. Aker
was convicted of a class B felony – neglect of a dependent resulting in serious
bodily injury. The advisory sentence for a class B felony is ten years, with the
minimum and maximum sentence being six and twenty years, respectively.
Aker was sentenced to two years less than the advisory term, i.e., eight years.
[18] Regarding the nature of his offense, Aker was the paid custodian and caregiver
of T.W., a woman with severe cerebral palsy who was entirely dependent upon
him for her care. She was unable to speak or care for herself and was confined
to a bed or wheelchair. Although it appears that Aker cared for her adequately
for a period of years, at some point he began to neglect her care such that she
developed severe bedsores covering the lower half of her body, one of which
was large enough and deep enough that it ate deeply into the muscle beneath it.
The photos of her injuries indicate that she almost surely suffered severe pain as
a result. Although Aker claimed that he attempted to treat the bedsores, he
acknowledged that they eventually “got out of hand”, which understates the
severity of her condition as reflected in post-mortem photos. Transcript at 52.
Yet, he failed to seek medical help until he perceived that she was having
trouble breathing. Moreover, under Aker’s care, by the time he summoned
medical assistance as a result of T.W.’s breathing difficulties, T.W. suffered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 10 of 12
from extreme malnutrition and a bowel obstruction, with those conditions
being severe enough to cause her death. In summary, a disabled woman who
depended entirely upon Aker for her care and well-being died a premature and
painful death entirely as a result of his extreme neglect.
[19] As for Aker’s character, the trial court aptly noted that he has an almost
inconsequential criminal history, consisting of a long-ago misdemeanor
conviction of operating while intoxicated and a more recent charge of
misdemeanor check deception, which was ultimately dismissed. The trial
court’s finding that he is a low risk to reoffend is well grounded in the evidence
in this case. It also appears that Aker provided adequate care, and perhaps
better than adequate care, for T.W. for a number of years before the recent
precipitous decline in care that led to her death. The trial court accepted Aker’s
expression of remorse as genuine, and we see no reason to quibble with that
finding. We cannot, however, ignore the way T.W.’s life ended and the role
Aker played in her death. Not only did he cease providing adequate care, but
he also ignored very obvious symptoms that would indicate to even a casual
observer that T.W. was enduring great suffering. Moreover, he acknowledged
that the reason he did not act more quickly on her behalf was rooted in his own
self-interest, i.e., he was afraid he would be blamed for her poor condition. The
decision to elevate his own self-interest above T.W.’s great suffering and even
survival does not reflect well on his character. In the final analysis, we find no
fault in the imposition of a sentence that, although the maximum permissible
under the terms of the plea agreement, was nevertheless below the advisory
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 11 of 12
sentence for a class B felony. We do not believe that Aker’s character and the
nature of his offense compel this court to conclude that an eight-year sentence is
inappropriately long.
[20] Judgment affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1409-CR-411 | April 17, 2015 Page 12 of 12