Juaquin Diaz-Delreal v. State of Indiana ( 2015 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 12 2015, 9:44 am
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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
KRISTINA J. JACOBUCCI GREGORY F. ZOELLER
LaPorte, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KARL M. SCHARNBERG
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JUAQUIN DIAZ-DELREAL, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 46A03-1404-CR-130
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAPORTE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Thomas J. Alevizos, Judge
Cause No. 46C01-1302-FD-729
January 12, 2015
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SULLIVAN, Senior Judge
Juaquin Diaz-Delreal has filed a petition for rehearing from this Court’s
memorandum decision affirming Diaz-Delreal’s sentence, but reversing and remanding the
matter to the trial court to vacate the judgment of conviction as a Class D felony and enter
a judgment of conviction as a Class A misdemeanor, as explicitly provided for in the plea
agreement. See Diaz-Delreal v. State, No. 46A03-1404-CR-130 (Ind. Ct. App. October
27, 2014). We grant Diaz-Delreal’s petition to clarify a factual issue, but otherwise affirm
our opinion in all respects.
Diaz-Delreal contends that we misstated the record with respect to his criminal
history in our review of his sentencing argument. In particular, he challenges our statement
that his criminal history consisted of a prior adjudication for what would be battery if
committed by an adult, contending instead that he was satisfactorily released from
supervised probation while the matter pended under advisement. Assuming that Diaz-
Delreal’s representation of the record is correct, we affirm his sentence nonetheless.
An appellant bears the burden of showing both prongs of the Appellate Rule 7(B)
inquiry in order to obtain a revision of his sentence. Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823,
827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We noted in our opinion that Diaz-Delreal’s criminal history
was not among the worst. However, the focus of our review concerned the nature of the
offense. The victim of Diaz-Delreal’s criminal recklessness almost died from his injuries.
He suffered extreme pain from skull and orbital bone fractures and now no longer has
sensation in the jaw area. On this ground alone, namely the nature of the offense, we
conclude that Diaz-Delreal has failed to meet his burden of establishing that his sentence
is inappropriate.
2
Aside from this factual clarification, we affirm our original opinion in all respects.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
3