Ronald C. Weyland v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Oct 05 2015, 8:34 am ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Frederick Vaiana Voyles Zahn & Paul Indianapolis, Indiana Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Ronald C. Weyland, October 5, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A04-1409-CR-446 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court The Honorable Dennis D. Carroll, Judge Cause No. 48C06-1306-FA-1227 Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 48A04-1409-CR-446| October 5, 2015 Page 1 of 3 [1] Ronald C. Weyland (“Weyland”) appealed his convictions for Child Molesting and Attempted Child Molesting, as Class A felonies, and Child Molesting, as a Class C felony. This Court affirmed the convictions for Attempted Child Molesting, as a Class A felony, and Child Molesting, as a Class C felony, but reversed the conviction for Child Molesting, as a Class A felony, for insufficiency of the evidence. Weyland v. State, No. 48A04-1409-CR-446 (Ind. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2015). We remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate Weyland’s conviction for Child Molesting, as a Class A felony. [2] On July 1, 2015, Weyland filed a petition for rehearing, requesting that this Court provide specific instructions to the trial court to resentence him upon remand. In his petition, Weyland directs our attention to this Court’s opinion in Sanjari v. State, 981 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In Sanjari, this Court “acknowledge[d] that a trial court is likely to view individual sentences in a multi-count proceeding as part of an overall plan … that can be overthrown if one or more of the convictions is reversed or reduced in degree.” Id. at 583. Weyland argues that, in sentencing him to forty-five years imprisonment, the trial court’s decision took into account the Class A-level Child Molesting conviction as a basis for an aggravated sentence, and this Court’s decision to reverse the conviction worked to “overthrow[]” the trial court’s sentencing plan. Id. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 48A04-1409-CR-446| October 5, 2015 Page 2 of 3 [3] We agree. We accordingly grant rehearing and add to our instructions upon remand an instruction to the trial court to resentence Weyland. We reaffirm our prior opinion in all other respects. Barnes, J., concurs. Riley, J., votes to deny Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 48A04-1409-CR-446| October 5, 2015 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
