Terrance L. Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                           FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                  Dec 14 2017, 9:55 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                    CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                     Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                                and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Brian A. Karle                                          Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Lafayette, Indiana                                      Attorney General of Indiana
    Christina D. Pace
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Terrance L. Williams,                                   December 14, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    79A02-1705-CR-1001
    v.                                              Appeal from the Tippecanoe
    Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable Randy Williams,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                     Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    79D01-1604-F5-48
    Barnes, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017            Page 1 of 10
    Case Summary
    [1]   Terrance Williams appeals his convictions and four-year sentence for Level 5
    felony battery and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. We affirm.
    Issues
    [2]   The issues before us are:
    I.       whether the trial court improperly entered judgment of
    conviction for a third count, Class A misdemeanor
    domestic battery; and
    II.      whether Williams’s sentence is inappropriate.
    Facts
    [3]   In 2016, Williams was in a romantic relationship with E.B. They lived together
    in Lafayette and had been dating for about three years. On March 30, 2016,
    E.B. had a doctor’s appointment for a pregnancy she and Williams had learned
    of about a week earlier.1 E.B.’s friend, Sierra James, took E.B. to the
    appointment while Williams stayed at the apartment. While E.B. was gone,
    Williams discovered a condom in her dresser, which angered him because he
    and E.B. did not use condoms.
    [4]   When E.B. and James returned to the apartment, Williams confronted E.B.
    about the condom. The argument became physical, and Williams began
    1
    The baby apparently was born at the end of October 2016, and Williams does not deny that he is the father.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017          Page 2 of 10
    shoving E.B. He also hit her with the bedroom door while she was standing in
    the doorway and pushed her so that she fell backwards over a laundry basket,
    causing a small cut on her back. E.B. called the police and told an officer who
    arrived that Williams had been pushing her around and injured her lower back.
    After the officer observed the injury and talked to Williams, he placed Williams
    under arrest.
    [5]   The State charged Williams with Count I, Level 5 felony battery resulting in
    bodily injury to a pregnant woman and Count II, Class A misdemeanor
    domestic battery. In conjunction with the filing of the charges, the trial court
    issued a no-contact order prohibiting Williams from having any direct or
    indirect contact with E.B. or James. However, while in jail awaiting trial,
    Williams twice called E.B., and those conversations were recorded.
    [6]   On November 11, 2016, Williams called E.B. and repeatedly blamed her for his
    being in jail and facing possible prison time, saying among other things “I’m
    f***ed now” and “I hope you and Sierra are happy now.” Ex. 13. E.B., who
    was crying during most of the call, said, “Well first of all you shouldn’t even be
    putting your hands on a pregnant woman period! Stop blaming me for your
    f***ing actions.” 
    Id. Williams continued
    berating E.B. for calling the police,
    allowing them to take pictures, and “pressing charges.” 
    Id. He said
    that,
    according to his bunkmate, if she and James signed and delivered to the trial
    court and prosecutor an “affidavit of innocence” stating that he had never
    touched E.B., he could have his case dismissed. 
    Id. He asked
    her to do this
    “ASAP” and threatened to end their relationship unless she did so. 
    Id. On Court
    of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 3 of 10
    December 27, 2016, Williams again called E.B. He began by asking her where
    she was and who she was with. He then told E.B. that he had read in a
    discovery response that she wanted him to go to jail and said, “You pretty
    much just f***ed me.” 
    Id. He talked
    about rejecting a proposed plea agreement
    and said, “I’m f***ed unless you and Sierra go to trial and say that I didn’t do
    s***.” 
    Id. E.B. seemed
    upset at the prospect of Williams going to prison for
    several years but said it was unlikely James would change her testimony. E.B.
    and Williams’s baby was crying during this phone call, but Williams did not ask
    about or mention the baby.
    [7]   Because of Williams’s contacting E.B. in violation of the no-contact order, the
    State thereafter filed a Count III, Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. A
    jury trial was held on March 7-8, 2017. James testified as to Williams’s battery
    of E.B. E.B., however, denied that Williams had battered her and recanted her
    original statements to police, and said that she had accidentally tripped and
    fallen over the laundry basket. The jury found Williams guilty of all three
    counts. The trial court then stated, “The Court accepts the verdicts and enters
    judgment of conviction as to the three (3) counts. The issue of merger will be
    dealt with at the time of sentencing . . . .” Tr. p. 130. Subsequently, the trial
    court entered a written jury trial order, stating in part, “The Court enters
    JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION on Counts I, II and III.” App. Vol. II p. 99.
    [8]   The trial court held a sentencing hearing on April 7, 2017. During the hearing,
    the trial court stated that Count II “merges” into Count I and that it would not
    impose a sentence on that count. Tr. p. 148. In a written sentencing order, the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 4 of 10
    trial court stated, “The Court finds that Count II merges into Count I, therefore
    the Court enters Judgment of Conviction on Counts I and III.” App. Vol. II p.
    102. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years for Level 5 felony battery
    and one year for Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, to be served
    consecutively for a total of four years. The trial court further ordered that only
    the three-year battery portion of the sentence would be served in the
    Department of Correction. Of that three years, the trial court ordered one year
    to be fully executed, one year to be served in community corrections, and one
    year to be suspended, and also that the invasion of privacy one-year term be
    suspended. Williams now appeals.
    Analysis
    I. Disposition of Domestic Battery Charge
    [9]   Williams contends that convictions for both Level 5 felony battery and Class A
    misdemeanor domestic battery would violate double jeopardy principles. The
    State does not dispute that point, but argues there is no double jeopardy
    violation because the trial court did not enter judgment of conviction for the
    Class A misdemeanor charge. It is true, as Williams points out, that the
    “merger” of one conviction with another after a judgment of conviction has
    been entered, or the imposition of concurrent sentences for two offenses, does
    not solve a double jeopardy problem. Hines v. State, 
    30 N.E.3d 1216
    , 1221 (Ind.
    2015). However, “[w]here the court merges the lesser-included offense without
    imposing judgment, there is no need to remand on appeal to ‘vacate.’” Green v.
    State, 
    856 N.E.2d 703
    , 704 (Ind. 2006).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 5 of 10
    [10]   Here, the trial court did originally state, after the jury returned its verdict, that it
    was entering judgments of conviction for both Count I, Level 5 felony battery,
    and Count II, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. At sentencing, however,
    the trial court imposed no sentence for Count II. Furthermore, in its written
    sentencing order the trial court clearly stated that it was not entering a judgment
    of conviction for that count. To the extent the trial court may originally have
    stated its intention to enter judgment of conviction on that count, its subsequent
    statements effectively vacated that judgment or negated that intention. There
    are no penal consequences attaching to the finding of guilty on Count II, and
    there is no need for us to remand for the trial court to take any further action
    with respect to that count.
    II. Sentence
    [11]   Williams also claims that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate
    Rule 7(B) in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Although Rule
    7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s
    sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that decision.
    Rutherford v. State, 
    866 N.E.2d 867
    , 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also
    understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
    sentencing decisions. 
    Id. “Additionally, a
    defendant bears the burden of
    persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” 
    Id. [12] The
    principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the
    outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged
    with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 6 of 10
    ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    , 1225 (Ind.
    2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than
    the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the
    sentence on any individual count.” 
    Id. Whether a
    sentence is inappropriate
    ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
    the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
    given case. 
    Id. at 1224.
    When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence
    under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences
    imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a
    portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 
    926 N.E.2d 1023
    ,
    1025 (Ind. 2010).
    [13]   For Williams’s Level 5 felony conviction, he received an advisory term of three
    years, in the middle of the statutory one-to-six years range. See Ind. Code § 35-
    50-2-6(b). He received the maximum term for a Class A misdemeanor. See I.C.
    § 35-50-3-2. However, although the trial court ordered the sentences served
    consecutively, resulting in a total four-year term, the trial court was generous
    with respect to how that sentence would be served. Williams only has to spend
    one year incarcerated, one year in community corrections, and then two years
    suspended to probation. We will keep this in mind when evaluating the
    appropriateness of Williams’s sentence.
    [14]   Williams contends that the nature of the offenses was not egregious. He notes
    that the bodily injury E.B. sustained was not substantial and that she was very
    early in her pregnancy. We can agree with Williams’s characterization of the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 7 of 10
    injury but not with his minimizing of the battery based on the early stage of
    E.B.’s pregnancy. There should be no serious doubt that battery of a pregnant
    woman could result in injury to her fetus as well, regardless of the stage of
    pregnancy. And, it is clear that Williams was aware of the pregnancy. As for
    Williams’s invasion of E.B.’s privacy, we find it to be highly egregious and
    inextricably intertwined with his battery conviction. Williams’s conduct is a
    precise reason no-contact orders are entered in cases such as this. He played on
    the emotions of a woman who had just given birth, daring to repeatedly blame
    her for his predicament and insisting that she recant her statements to police.
    Eventually, Williams was successful in emotionally browbeating E.B. into
    changing her story and testifying that she had lied in her earlier statements to
    police and when she said in the first jail phone call that Williams should not
    have put his hands on a pregnant woman.
    [15]   As for Williams’s character, he was nineteen at the time of the offense and
    twenty at sentencing. His juvenile history began in 2013 at the age of sixteen,
    when he acquired two delinquency adjudications for what would be Class D
    felony theft. Thereafter, multiple modifications of Williams’s probation were
    filed for things such as testing positive for marijuana, failing to appear for drug
    screens, and failing to abide by house arrest rules. On four occasions, the
    modification motions were granted, and in 2014, Williams’s juvenile probation
    was terminated as unsuccessful. After committing these offenses in this case
    and while out on bond, Williams was charged with Class A misdemeanor
    possession of a synthetic drug; he was convicted of that offense before his trial
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 8 of 10
    in this case. Williams attempts to downplay the significance of this criminal
    history, noting in part that it is for non-violent offenses. That is true, but the
    sheer number of offenses within a short period of time, along with his repeated
    violations of juvenile probation, reflect very poorly on his character.
    [16]   Williams contends that he displayed good character by taking classes in jail to
    received his GED and that he received extensive support from his family at
    sentencing. He also claims that he has a “new perspective” on life after the
    birth of his child. Appellant’s Br. p. 11. This alleged “new perspective” was
    not on display in Williams’s calls to E.B. after the child’s birth. Rather,
    Williams was entirely self-interested, did not express any remorse, and was
    more interested in his own welfare than that of either E.B. or his child. In fact,
    although Williams at one point expressed sadness that he would not be present
    for his child’s first Thanksgiving and Christmas, he never once asked about how
    the baby was doing, even when she was crying during the second phone call. In
    sum, whatever good character is demonstrated by Williams’s pursuit of a GED
    and his extended family support is counterbalanced by his criminal history and
    the character displayed in his calls to E.B.
    [17]   For Williams’s Level 5 felony battery of his girlfriend while she was pregnant
    with his child and his subsequent invasion of E.B.’s privacy, he received a
    sentence of one year fully executed, one year in community corrections, and
    two years suspended. That does not strike us as at all inappropriate in light of
    the nature of the offenses and Williams’s character.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 9 of 10
    Conclusion
    [18]   Because the trial court effectively vacated any conviction for Class A
    misdemeanor domestic battery and it did not impose a sentence for that count,
    we need not remand for the trial court to take any further action. Furthermore,
    Williams’s sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.
    [19]   Affirmed.
    May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1705-CR-1001 | December 14, 2017   Page 10 of 10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 79A02-1705-CR-1001

Filed Date: 12/14/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2017