Kody Robinson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Kody Robinson was driving while intoxicated and struck a motorcycle, injuring the motorcyclist. Robinson pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and causing serious bodily injury when operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court imposed a 10-year aggregate sentence. Robinson now appeals and presents a single issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in identifying aggravators at sentencing.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 12, 2023, after drinking “[m]aybe a pint” of vodka, Tr. Vol. II at 23, Robinson operated a vehicle and struck a motorcycle with his car. After the collision, Robinson exited his vehicle to check on the motorcyclist but fled the scene shortly thereafter. The motorcyclist suffered a broken knee, a broken leg, and a concussion. That night, law enforcement located Robinson and found two open vodka containers inside his vehicle. At the time, Robinson had a blood alcohol content of 0.278.

[4] The State charged Robinson with (1) leaving the scene of an accident as a Level 3 felony, (2) operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury as a Level 5 felony, and (3) operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person as a Class A misdemeanor. Robinson pled guilty to the first two charges and left sentencing to the trial court's discretion.

[5] The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) revealed that, at the time of the offense, Robinson was on probation for a 2022 invasion of privacy conviction. The PSI also indicated that Robinson had been ordered to undergo substance abuse treatment both as part of his probation and separately as a condition of his 2021 divorce decree. At sentencing, the trial court issued the following statement regarding aggravators:

But I am giving weight to the fact you were on probation when this continued, I am giving weight to the fact that you violated your divorce decree Court orders on counseling, that you violated the counseling that you were in while you completed this, and that you continued to not do counseling up until that point. I use those all as aggravating factors.

Tr. Vol. II at 62. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 years with 6 years executed and 4 years suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Identifying Aggravators at Sentencing

[6] Robinson argues that the trial court erred in identifying aggravating factors during sentencing. We review a trial court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256, 269 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)), reh'g denied (Aug. 17, 2023). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the 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. (quoting Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490). “A court does not abuse its discretion if the record supports its reasons for imposing a sentence and those reasons are proper as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490–91).

[7] Robinson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on his divorce decree in identifying aggravating circumstances, claiming that the record does not support the use of the decree. However, details regarding Robinson's divorce decree were included in the presentence investigation report. The report identifies the divorce decree by cause number, provides that Robinson was ordered “to engage in ․ a drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment,” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 40, and indicates that Robinson admitted that he had never completed the substance abuse treatment as ordered. We also note that his probation required him to undergo substance abuse treatment, and the present offense is further evidence of Robinson's failure to address his problem with alcohol. We conclude that the trial court's aggravators are supported by the evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

[8] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Foley concur. Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.