# Marlett v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 28, 2007 · 878 N.E.2d 860

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710319

## Case

- **Full name:** Travis MARLETT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 878 N.E.2d 860; 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 2953; 2007 WL 4555274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bradford
- **Judges:** Barnes, Kirsch, Bradford
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710319

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that as a result of a 2007 amendment to the statute: "No longer can an SVP determination be made on the basis of paper reports ...."
- noting that convictions for certain crimes mandate an automatic sexually violent predator finding
- noting that this court lacks jurisdiction over appeals that are not timely filed

## Opinion text

*873 BRADFORD, Judge,
dissenting.
Although I concur with the majority’s disposition of issues II and III and the State’s cross-appeal, I must respectfully dissent, as I believe that a twenty-year sentence, in light of the nature of Marlett’s offense and his character, is fully justified. The nature of Marlett’s offense was a senseless and brutal attack that could very well have resulted in L.A.V.’s death had circumstances been slightly different. After approaching L.A.V. from behind, putting his hand over her mouth, and telling her that he would kill her, Marlett slashed her throat with a knife. The first person to come upon the scene noted that blood was “pouring” from L.A.V.’s neck. Whether or not Marlett intended to kill L.A.V., cutting a person’s throat is very likely to produce that result. Moreover, there is no way to know what might have happened had Marlett not been discovered so quickly. Finally, Marlett’s attack occurred in a school, where students expect (and should be able to expect) that they are safe. In my view, to the extent that Marlett’s attack damaged that reasonable expectation of safety, that makes it all the worse.
As for Marlett’s character, it is that of a violent and calculating predator who has also indicated an interest in future attacks. The record indicates that Marlett had been planning an attack of some sort (he did, after all, take a knife to school) and that he specifically timed it to occur before his eighteenth birthday, in the mistaken, as it happened, belief that he would be tried as a juvenile. Marlett told one supervisor at a juvenile detention center that he “just had to see if I could go through with it before I see my girlfriend in Indianapolis” and told another that he struck when he did because he thought he would only be incarcerated for one or two years as a result, as opposed to the twenty years he expected to face if he committed his crime as an adult. Waiver Tr. p. 41. Police found fifty to sixty knives, swords, and machetes in Marlett’s bedroom. While in jail, Marlett had a magazine with pictures of knives and mutilated bodies and would say, “That is how I will do it next time[,]” while looking at them. Appellee’s App. p. 1. Moreover, I see nothing in this record to indicate that Marlett’s actions can be traced to his mental health issues. Regarding Marlett’s “mild” form of Asper-ger’s Disorder, the record indicates only that his dual obsessions, knives and reptiles, but not his violent tendencies, can be traced to it. Waiver Tr. p. 98-103, 248. Because I believe that Marlett’s twenty-year sentence was fully justified, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710319. Public record. Not legal advice.