Jeffrey Henderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 17 2019, 9:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General
Madison, Indiana
Lauren A. Jacobsen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffrey Henderson, June 17, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-3115
v. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D.
Appellee-Plaintiff Humphrey, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15C01-1711-F4-32
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 1 of 11
Case Summary
[1] Jeffrey Henderson pled guilty by open plea agreement to seventeen counts of
level 4 felony burglary. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate eighty-
eight-year executed term. Henderson now claims that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Finding
that he has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his sentence is
inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] During a two-month period between August and October 2017, deputies from
the Dearborn County Sheriff’s Department responded to reports of seventeen
home burglaries. The burglar’s pattern of conduct included prying open a door
or window and stealing cash, power tools, weapons, jewelry, and various
electronics. Investigating officers used physical evidence to trace the burglaries
to forty-three-year-old Henderson, who was on probation and had a criminal
record that included seventeen prior burglary convictions. Meanwhile,
Henderson had been arrested and was in the county jail on an unrelated drug
dealing charge. Detectives Carl Pieczonka and Norman Rimstidt interviewed
Henderson at the jail, and Henderson admitted to committing the burglaries by
using a screwdriver to pry open the doors and windows. He agreed to
accompany the officers to the various homes, describing how he entered each
home and the items he stole.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 2 of 11
[3] The State charged Henderson with seventeen counts of level 4 felony burglary,
plus a habitual offender count. Henderson entered an open plea agreement
whereby he would plead guilty to the seventeen burglary counts. In exchange,
the State dismissed the habitual offender count, a level 2 felony drug dealing
charge in another cause, and probation revocation petitions pending in two
counties. After his guilty plea hearing, Henderson phoned his wife from the
jail. He told her that based on the trial court’s apparent concern over his mental
health history, he believed that his mental health issues could be his “loophole.”
State’s Ex. 2.
[4] Three days later, Henderson filed correspondence with the trial court claiming
that he had been confused, did not know what was real, and was unsure about
his plea. The trial court appointed two psychologists to evaluate Henderson’s
mental competency. Dr. Ed Connor examined Henderson and initially found
him mentally incompetent. After reviewing several jailhouse recordings,
including phone calls between Henderson and his wife and Henderson’s
interview with Detectives Pieczonka and Rimstidt, Dr. Connor concluded that
Henderson had been exaggerating his symptoms and malingering during his
initial interview. As a result, he submitted a letter to the trial court withdrawing
his initial finding of incompetency and concluding instead that Henderson was
mentally competent. Psychologist Don Olive examined Henderson and also
found him to be mentally competent. Based on these findings, the trial court
found Henderson competent and accepted the plea agreement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 3 of 11
[5] The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, took matters under advisement,
and sentenced Henderson to an aggregate eighty-eight-year executed term,
comprising seventeen eight-year terms, eleven of which were to run
consecutively. The court identified as aggravators Henderson’s lengthy
criminal history, which includes nineteen felony convictions, seventeen of
which are for burglary, his probation status at the time of the offenses, his deceit
upon the court concerning his mental health, and the advanced age of three of
the victim homeowners. The court identified as slightly mitigating Henderson’s
decision to plead guilty, his physical and mental health issues, and potential
hardship on his family. Henderson appeals his sentence. Additional facts will
be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Henderson asks that we review and revise his sentence pursuant to Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), which states that we “may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [this] Court finds
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function
in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). When a defendant
requests appellate review and revision of his sentence, we have the power to
affirm or reduce the sentence. Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811, 813 (Ind. 2010).
In conducting our review, our principal role is to leaven the outliers, focusing
on the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be served. Bess v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 4 of 11
58 N.E.3d 174, 175 (Ind. 2016); Foutch v. State, 53 N.E.3d 577, 580 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2016). This allows for consideration of all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing, i.e., whether it consists
of executed time, probation, suspension, home detention, or placement in
community corrections, and whether the sentences run concurrently or
consecutively. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). We do
“not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if another
sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence is
‘inappropriate.’” Foutch, 53 N.E.3d at 581 (quoting Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d
306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied (2014)). The defendant bears the
burden of persuading this Court that his sentence meets the inappropriateness
standard. Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016).
[7] In considering the nature of Henderson’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the
starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence.” Green v.
State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017). When
determining the appropriateness of a sentence that deviates from an advisory
sentence, we consider whether there is anything more or less egregious about
the offense as committed by the defendant that “makes it different from the
typical offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory
sentence.” Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[8] The trial court sentenced Henderson to an aggregate eighty-eight years for
seventeen level 4 felonies, each of which carries a sentencing range of two to
twelve years, with a six-year advisory term. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 5 of 11
Code Section 35-50-1-2(c) affords the trial court the discretion to impose
sentences for multiple counts either consecutively or concurrently, after
considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Because our
legislature has included level 4 felony burglary on the list of “crimes of
violence,” the trial court is not limited in the total consecutive terms of
imprisonment it may impose. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(a). Here, the court
imposed eight-year executed sentences on each of the seventeen counts and ran
only eleven of them consecutively.
[9] Henderson correctly asserts that his burglaries did not involve violence. He
claims that he specifically chose to burglarize homes where he knew the owners
would not be present. That said, he appears to have surveilled his victims,
which indicates premeditation. His numerous break-ins produced a large cache
of contraband, including jewelry, firearms, alcohol, cash, electronics, and
power tools. Moreover, he attempted to eliminate incriminating evidence by
repeatedly filing down the screwdriver that he used to pry open his victims’
doors and windows to remove trace amounts of paint that could be tied to each
crime scene. By all accounts, Henderson’s current crime spree was fine-tuned
and vast in scope, with seventeen home burglaries in just over two months’
time. Three of the homeowners were elderly. Victim impact letters introduced
during sentencing indicate that although the victims were not home during
Henderson’s burglaries, they nevertheless experienced fear, financial loss, and a
sense of violation. In short, the nature of Henderson’s offenses does not
militate toward a shorter sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 6 of 11
[10] Likewise, Henderson’s character does not militate toward a shorter sentence.
We conduct our review of his character by engaging in a broad consideration of
his qualities. Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on
other grounds on reh’g, 11 N.E.3d 571. “When considering the character of the
offender, one relevant fact is the defendant’s criminal history.” Garcia v. State,
47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (2016). Henderson’s
juvenile record includes robbery involving the placement of a metal object to a
female victim’s throat. As a seventeen-year-old, he was waived to adult court
for theft of firearms. His extensive adult criminal record includes nineteen prior
felony convictions, seventeen of them for burglary. In all, Henderson has
amassed thirty-four burglary convictions. He has failed to respond to lenient
sentencing options, as is evidenced by his previous probation revocation and the
fact that he was serving probation at the time he committed the current
offenses. During his previous stints of incarceration, he accumulated twenty-
nine reports for misconduct, including intimidation, battery, and throwing
bodily waste on a nurse.
[11] Henderson touts his guilty plea and cooperation with law enforcement as
reflections of a positive character. While a guilty plea may be mitigating where
the defendant accepts full responsibility and saves the State the expense of
preparing for and conducting a trial, “a guilty plea may not be significantly
mitigating when it does not demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of
responsibility or when the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for
the plea.” McCoy v. State, 96 N.E.3d 95, 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 7 of 11
Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 281, 221 (Ind. 2007), opinion on reh’g). With
respect to Henderson’s guilty plea, we observe that soon after he entered the
plea, he attempted to cast doubt on it and notified the trial court that he was
confused and unsure what was real, essentially claiming mental incompetence.
Additionally, he received a substantial benefit in the dismissal of a habitual
offender count, a level 2 felony narcotics dealing charge in another cause, and
two probation revocation petitions. Thus, by pleading guilty, he reduced his
overall sentence exposure by about fifty years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(1)
(court shall impose additional fixed term of six to twenty years for habitual
offender convicted of level 1 through level 4 felony); see also Ind. Code § 35-50-
2-4.5 (level 2 felony carries sentencing range of ten to thirty years with
seventeen and one-half-year advisory). We find Henderson’s cooperation with
law enforcement to be linked to the State’s favorable plea offer and similarly
beneficial to him. At the time that Henderson gave the jailhouse interview in
which he admitted to committing the seventeen burglaries, he was in pretrial
custody facing a level 2 felony drug dealing charge in another cause. He
accompanied law enforcement officers to those crime scenes and also showed
them the locations of some previously unreported burglaries. His cooperation
with law enforcement paid dividends in the form of dismissal by plea agreement
of his most serious charge.
[12] Henderson also suggests that we take into account his drug addiction and
mental and physical health issues because they have resulted in “a reduced
capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and control his impulses.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 8 of 11
Appellant’s Br. at 12. Henderson’s history of drug and alcohol abuse dates back
to his teen years and includes regular use of marijuana, cocaine, and crack, and
most recently, an addiction to opiates. Although he has intermittently
participated in treatment programs, he has not sustained any prolonged success.
Henderson’s approach to funding his drug problem through serial burglary
appears more methodical than impulsive and reflects negatively on his
character. As for his physical health, the record indicates that he has bad knees,
gall bladder issues, and some level of kidney failure. However, he has failed to
make a compelling argument that he would receive inadequate care for these
ailments while serving time in the Department of Correction.
[13] When it comes to Henderson’s mental health, the record is less than clear.
Henderson testified that he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. A report from the Department of
Correction/Miami Correctional Facility indicates that Henderson’s diagnosis
was “Antisocial Personality Disorder.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 4 at 25. Based
on Henderson’s apparent lucidity during recorded jailhouse conversations and
the final reports from two psychologists, the trial court found Henderson to be
exaggerating and embellishing his mental health issues and concluded that his
“malingering raises questions as to the existence or severity of any mental
health issues.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 147.
[14] While we in no way wish to intimate that Henderson’s mental health issues are
entirely feigned, we, like the trial court, find it difficult to determine the actual
extent of those issues. The record does indicate that Henderson has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 9 of 11
embellished and exaggerated them to manipulate the system. For example, Dr.
Connor, who conducted Henderson’s mental competency evaluation, reversed
his initial opinion that Henderson lacked mental competency after reviewing
the jailhouse recordings. In his letter to the court explaining his change of
opinion, Dr. Connor wrote, in pertinent part, that the recordings show that
Henderson “was clearly coherent and was very well aware of his legal
circumstances and potential options.” State’s Ex. 2. The doctor also wrote that
Henderson’s reference to his mental health history as “his ‘loophole’ … strongly
suggests deceitfulness.” Id. He described Henderson as “able to intellectually
and insightfully discuss his legal competency” during the recorded
conversations, and as being “coherent, talkative, and display[ing] a very
different intellectual and verbal demeanor than he did in his [mental]
evaluation.” Id. Dr. Connor also noted how “clearly coherent” Henderson was
in his recorded interview with the detectives, providing them information that
was relevant and specific. Id. The doctor concluded his letter to the court by
stating, “I must respectfully change my opinion that [Henderson’s] ‘deficient
mental capacity compromises his ability to rationally assist his attorney in
preparing his defense at this time.’ I now believe that [he] was malingering
during my evaluation of him…. it appears from the audio recordings that Mr.
Henderson was quite astute at malingering.” Id.
[15] At Henderson’s competency hearing, Dr. Connor again described Henderson as
“sound[ing] very legally intelligent” in the jailhouse recordings and reported
that during one phone call, Henderson had talked to his wife about doing legal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 10 of 11
research and referred to his mental issues as a “loophole” for getting an open
plea and probation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 40. During that same call, Henderson also
said, “I ain’t no dummy.” Id. The trial court agreed, noting Henderson’s
lucidity and attention to detail during his recorded interview with the
detectives, and found that Henderson had committed deceit toward the court.
Based on our review of the record, we, too, believe that Henderson is “no
dummy” but instead is an opportunist and manipulator of the system with
which he has become so familiar. His character simply does not merit a shorter
sentence.
[16] Finally, while we are mindful that Henderson’s sentence effectively amounts to
a life sentence, given his age, it reflects a lifetime of criminal activity that
includes not only the current seventeen home burglary convictions but also
seventeen prior burglary convictions, as well as felony convictions for
intimidation and theft of firearms and failure to respond to lenient sentencing
options. Applying our Rule 7(B) legal criteria, which includes the deference we
must afford the trial court, we conclude that Henderson has failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of his offenses and his character. Consequently, we affirm.
[17] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3115 | June 17, 2019 Page 11 of 11