Michael W. Todd, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michael W. Todd appeals his sentence for intimidation as a class A misdemeanor. We find one issue dispositive, which is whether this appeal is moot. We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 15, 2023, Todd sent text messages to Tammy Holder. One of the messages stated that Todd would “[e]at her effing gut intestines in an effing stew.” Transcript Volume II at 14.

[3] On May 15, 2024, the State charged Todd with Count I, intimidation as a class A misdemeanor, and Count II, false report of neglect to the Department of Child Services as a class A misdemeanor. On October 1, 2024, the court held a status hearing, and Todd indicated that he wanted to plead guilty and wanted the matter resolved. With respect to the text message, Todd indicated he was “appalled” and “ashamed of [himself].” Id. After questioning Todd, the court found a factual basis with respect to Count I, entered conviction on Count I, and took Count II under advisement.

[4] On October 16, 2024, the court held a sentencing hearing. Upon the prosecutor's motion, the court dismissed Count II. The court stated, “The nature and circumstances of this particular case cause me great concern. It's not just intimidation, a threat, but it was an extreme threat or threats that were made.” Id. at 26. The court stated that it would “give [Todd] some time off because [he] did represent [himself] and plead guilty, so that is worth something.” Id. The court sentenced him to 330 days to be served in the Gibson County Jail and indicated that he would receive credit for time served.¹

Discussion

[5] Todd argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him, that permitting the trial court to sentence him to a nearly maximum sentence “stands to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 23 ․ of the Indiana Constitution” because trial courts are not required to articulate factors underlying their sentencing decisions in the context of misdemeanor sentencing, and that his sentence is inappropriate. Appellant's Brief at 20. He also asserts that this Court should decide the merits of his appeal “notwithstanding his release from incarceration under the public interest exception.”² Id. at 15.

[6] The State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because it is moot. It contends there is nothing in the record that would support a determination that this case is one of great public interest given that Todd is asking this Court to consider a generic application of sentencing review for a misdemeanor conviction that did not involve maximum executed time.

[7] The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a “case is deemed moot and will be dismissed when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” In re Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). Once a defendant's “sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered moot.” Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quotation omitted)). Indiana's courts have long recognized that a case that is otherwise moot may nevertheless be decided on its merits when the case involves a question of “great public interest.” In re Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d at 37. Cases of great public interest are those that “typically raise important policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009).

[8] In his brief filed on February 19, 2025, Todd acknowledges that he had “only twenty-four (24) actual days of incarceration remaining.” Appellant's Brief at 15-16. Accordingly, Todd has been released at this point.³ Thus, this Court cannot provide Todd with any effective relief on appeal. We cannot say that this case falls under the great public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

[9] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On December 6, 2024, Todd filed a Motion to Stay Execution of Sentence Pending Appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion on December 9, 2024. On January 7, 2025, Todd filed a Verified Motion for Stay with this Court requesting that we stay the enforcement of his sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 39. On January 17, 2025, this Court denied the motion.

2.   In his brief, Todd asserts that he “does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea.” Appellant's Brief at 20 n.2.

3.   In its brief, the State asserts that “[t]he Gibson County Prosecutor's office provided that Todd was released on March 12, 2025.” Appellee's Brief at 8.

Brown, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur. Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.