# Mayberry v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 30, 1992 · 605 N.E.2d 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737701

## Case

- **Full name:** Lucille MAYBERRY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 605 N.E.2d 244; 1992 Ind. App. LEXIS 1970; 1992 WL 385504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Conover, Sullivan, Miller
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9737701

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
I fully agree that, as stated in Judge Miller’s dissent, the trial judge was in error in considering “lack of remorse” as an aggravating factor. Furthermore, I agree with much of the remainder of the dissenting opinion.
Mayberry’s crime is not justifiable as a self-help effort to collect compensation for services rendered. The trier of fact reasonably concluded that Mayberry did in fact intend to steal from Myers and did not negotiate the fifty dollar check in order to obtain legitimate compensation.
Nevertheless, the trial court might well have considered the totality of the circumstances to be somewhat in mitigation of the crime or crimes committed. The State in prosecuting appeared to do so. The prosecution might well have chosen to charge and seek conviction for multiple counts of forgery. However, despite twenty-two separate instances, the State elected to seek conviction upon only one forgery count. This prosecutorial election indicates a non-vindictive approach to Mayberry’s pattern of conduct.
The sentence itself, for the single count, may well be harsh under the circumstances. I agree that many, if not most, sentencing authorities would have imposed a less harsh sentence. However, even though our Supreme Court might well do so in light of its past decisions, I am unable to say with absolute conviction that this sentence is so manifestly unreasonable as to require modification. For this reason I concur in the affirmance of the conviction and the sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737701. Public record. Not legal advice.