ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey L. Sanford                                           Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana                                          Attorney General of Indiana

                                                             Angela N. Sanchez
                                                             Deputy Attorney General
                                                             Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________

                                             In the
                             Indiana Supreme Court                            Jun 28 2013, 11:36 am

                             _________________________________

                                     No. 71S03-1306-CR-455

        VALENTIN ESCOBEDO,                                   Appellant (Defendant),

                                                 v.

        STATE OF INDIANA,                              Appellee (Plaintiff).
                             _________________________________

                Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01-0812-FA-49
                          The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge
                            _________________________________

             On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-1202-CR-60
                            _________________________________

                                          June 28, 2013

Dickson, Chief Justice.


        Sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty-three years upon convictions for Battery, a class
A felony, and Neglect of a Dependent as a class D felony, the defendant appealed asserting
claims of error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and seeking appellate sentence review and
revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Escobedo v. State,
987 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We now grant transfer to address a single point.


        In rejecting the defendant's request for appellate sentence revision, the Court of Appeals
summarized its analysis as follows: "In other words, the maximum sentence here can be justified
as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and cir-
cumstances of the crime." Id. at 120. We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a commu-
nity's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. Notwithstanding this refer-
ence, however, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence
imposed by the trial court is appropriate and should be affirmed.


       In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Indiana
Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).


Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.




                                                2
