ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Leeman Law Office and Attorney General of Indiana
Cass County Public Defender
Logansport, Indiana Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Andrew Achey Indianapolis, Indiana
Logansport, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the FILED
Indiana Supreme Court Jul 21 2017, 3:39 pm
CLERK
_________________________________ Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
No. 09S02-1707-CR-491
RODNEY J. MCGUIRE,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court, No. 09C01-1502-FA-1
The Honorable Leo T. Burns, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 09A02-1605-CR-1148
_________________________________
July 21, 2017
Per Curiam.
Rodney McGuire and his girlfriend had a long-term relationship which ended around 2013.
In 2015, the girlfriend’s son, B.P., reported that McGuire had molested him repeatedly over the
course of several years, beginning when B.P. was eight or nine years old. The State charged
McGuire with six counts of Class A felony child molesting. In exchange for dismissal of five
counts, McGuire pleaded guilty to one count of Class A felony child molesting. During the plea
hearing and at sentencing, the State, defense counsel, and the trial court expressed agreement that
the statutory sentencing range for McGuire’s crime was thirty to fifty years. The trial court
sentenced McGuire to forty years executed in the Department of Correction. McGuire appealed,
contending the trial court’s sentence was based on a mistaken understanding of the minimum
sentence. Indeed, the parties now agree the statutory sentencing range for McGuire’s crime was
twenty to fifty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2012).
The Court of Appeals affirmed McGuire’s forty-year sentence. McGuire v. State, No.
09A02-1605-CR-1148, 2017 WL 677734 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017), reh’g denied. Though the
parties did not cite a statute for the assumption that thirty years was the minimum sentence, the
Court of Appeals presumed they relied on Indiana Code section 35-50-2-2(i).1 That statute
permitted the trial court to suspend only the portion of McGuire’s sentence exceeding thirty years,
because McGuire was over age twenty-one and B.P. was under age twelve at the time of the crime.
Because the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of forty years, the Court of Appeals
concluded it could “‘say with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same
sentence’ had it properly considered the facts and law applicable to the case.” McGuire, 2017 WL
677732, *3 (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh’g, 875
N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). McGuire seeks transfer, asking this Court to remand his case for
resentencing.
The Court of Appeals is correct that Indiana Code section 35-50-2-2(i) allowed the trial
court to suspend any portion of McGuire’s sentence exceeding thirty years. But the statute did not
change the minimum sentence from twenty to thirty years. See Miller v. State, 943 N.E.2d 348,
349 (Ind. 2011). We agree with McGuire that remand is appropriate.
1
As the Court of Appeals noted, this portion of the statute was not included in a later recodification.
McGuire, 2017 WL 677734, at *2, n.3.
2
Accordingly, we grant transfer and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing
consistent with this opinion. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion in all other
respects. See Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
Rush, C.J., and David and Slaughter, JJ., concur.
Massa, J., dissents with separate opinion.
3
Massa, J., dissenting.
The Court of Appeals, in its memorandum decision denying relief, concluded it could “‘say
with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence’ had it properly
considered the facts and law applicable to the case.” McGuire v. State, No. 09A02-1605-CR-1148,
2017 WL 677734, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017), reh’g denied (quoting Anglemyer v. State,
868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). I concur completely
with that assessment and thus cannot join in ordering an unnecessary remand.
4