# Iddings v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · August 12, 2002 · 772 N.E.2d 1006

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743779

## Case

- **Full name:** Wendell B. IDDINGS, Appellant, Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 12, 2002
- **Citations:** 772 N.E.2d 1006; 2002 WL 1832335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kirsch
- **Judges:** Barnes, Mathias, Kirsch
- **Cited by:** 74 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/9743779

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no double jeopardy violation for convictions of possession of precursors and manufacturing methamphetamine when completed methamphetamine was found in addition to various chemical precursors to manufacture additional methamphetamine
- explaining that “a history of substance abuse is sometimes found by trial courts to be an aggravator, not a mitigator”
- finding possession of precursors with intent to manufacture not to be a factually lesser included offense of manufacturing in defendant’s case
- holding court properly weighed aggravators and mitigators, and noting some trial courts find substance abuse to be an aggravator

## Opinion text

*1020 KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully coneur in the decision of the majority with regard to all issues exeept that involving sentencing. From that deci-gion, I respectfully dissent.
Our jurisprudence regarding appellate sentence review continues to evolve. As it does, we struggle with the appropriate balance between the deference due the trial court's discretion in its sentencing decision and our constitutional mandate under Article VII, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution to review and revise sentences. Here, for me, the balance tips on the side of review and revision. I believe that a forty-eight year sentence for a non-violent erime given to a defendant whose criminal history is not extensive and in the last twenty-two years includes only three misdemean- or battery convictions is "manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." I would vacate the sentence and remand with instructions to enter a sentence for twenty-four years.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743779. Public record. Not legal advice.