The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's rulings in the case of Nickalas James Kedrowitz, a 13-year-old convicted of murdering his two younger siblings. The Court affirmed Kedrowitz's competency to stand trial and determined his 100-year sentence for murder did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. While Kedrowitz argued that his age and mental condition should mitigate his sentence, rendering it unconstitutional, the Court rejected this argument. The Court asserted that existing legal precedent does not permit the consideration of a defendant's individual characteristics when evaluating the constitutionality of a sentence.

This case involved Nickalas James Kedrowitz, a teenager who, at thirteen years old, was responsible for the deaths of his two younger siblings. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's rulings on two key issues. Firstly, they confirmed that Kedrowitz was mentally competent to participate in his own trial. Secondly, the court determined that the 100-year sentence given to Kedrowitz for the murders did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Kedrowitz's defense argued that his age and mental condition should be mitigating factors in his sentencing, rendering it unconstitutional. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that existing legal precedent does not allow for a defendant's individual characteristics to be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of a sentence in this manner.

Nickalas James Kedrowitz v. State of Indiana (2022) was a court case about a 13-year-old, Nickalas Kedrowitz, who was found guilty of killing his younger brother and sister. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's decisions that Kedrowitz was mentally fit to go to trial and that his 100-year prison sentence for murder was not excessively harsh. Kedrowitz argued that because he was so young and struggling with his mental health, the sentence was unfair and went against the Constitution. However, the Court disagreed, stating there were no previous legal cases that allowed them to factor in a defendant's personal situation when making this type of judgment.

Nickalas James Kedrowitz was 13 years old when he killed his younger brother and sister. He was found guilty and sentenced to 100 years in prison. Kedrowitz appealed, and argued that he shouldn't have to be in jail for so long because he was very young and struggling with mental illness when it happened. However, he lost his appeal in court. The court decided that his 100-year punishment for the killings would not be changed. The court said that his age and feelings couldn't be considered when deciding his punishment.