Thomas Downey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 08 2018, 6:12 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James C. Spencer Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Dattilo Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Thomas Downey, February 8, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
39A04-1709-CR-2167
v. Appeal from the Jefferson Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hensley, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
39D01-1608-F5-712, 39D01-1701-
CM-4, 39D01-1704-CM-326
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] In August of 2016, Appellant-Defendant Thomas Downey was charged with a
number of criminal offenses. On June 14, 2017, the trial court conducted a
joint guilty plea and sentencing hearing.1 During this hearing, Downey pled
guilty to Level 5 felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony battery against a
public safety official, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury,
Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime, and Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The trial court accepted Downey’s
guilty plea and sentenced Downey to an aggregate three-year term with two
years and three months executed and the remaining nine months suspended to
probation. Recognizing that Downey’s mental state likely contributed to his
criminal behavior, the trial court recommended that the executed portion of
Downey’s sentence be served in the New Castle Correctional Facility so that
Downey could receive mental health treatment during his term of incarceration.
On appeal, Downey contends that his aggregate three-year sentence is
inappropriate. We affirm.
1
Three separate cause numbers were heard together during Downey’s guilty plea and sentencing hearing.
These cause numbers include 39D01-1608-F5-712 (“Cause No. F5-712”), 39D01-1701-CM-4 (“Cause No.
CM-4”), and 39D01-1704-CM-326 (“Cause No. CM-326”). Downey’s contentions on appeal relate only to
Cause No. F5-712. Downey makes no argument regarding the facts supporting his guilty pleas to or the
sentences imposed in either Cause No. CM-4 or Cause No. CM-326. As such, we will limit our discussion to
those facts which relate to Cause No. F5-712.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 2 of 10
Facts and Procedural History2
[2] Prior to the dates in question, Downey was diagnosed with schizophrenia. At
the time of his arrest, Downey lived with his mother, Pamela Hicks. Hicks had
experience dealing with schizophrenics given her long-term employment as a
registered nurse at Madison State Hospital. Hicks testified that when taking the
medication prescribed to treat his condition, Downey was “[n]inety percent
good.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 21. However, when not taking his medication “he’s
horrible, very delusional, thinks things are a certain way and they’re not, just
[does] all kinds of things that he should not be doing.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 21. Over
time, Hicks had become skilled at calming and controlling Downey’s behavior
when he suffered an episode related to his mental condition. However, in the
year leading up to August of 2016, Downey had stopped taking his medication.
As a result, he was no longer responsive to Hicks’s efforts. Downey’s mental
condition was exacerbated by both his refusal to take his medication and his
abuse of drugs and alcohol.
[3] Downey had been drinking alcohol during the evening hours of August 4, 2016,
and early morning hours of August 5, 2016. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on
August 5, 2016, Hicks asked Downey to quiet down. When Downey refused,
2
The factual basis provided to the trial court during the guilty plea hearing included only a basic factual
overview and lacked the details necessary to provide context to the reader. Therefore, to the extent
necessary, we will rely on Hicks’s testimony during the sentencing phase of the June 14, 2017 joint guilty plea
and sentencing hearing and information contained in the probable cause affidavit filed in the underlying case
to provide context to the readers.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 3 of 10
Hicks called 911. In an attempt to keep Hicks from calling 911, Downey
grabbed her by the wrist and pushed her down onto a couch. Downey then
confined her to the couch. As a result of Downey’s actions, Hicks suffered
pain, bruising, and swelling in her wrist.
[4] After arriving at Hicks’s home and observing Downey, responding officers
came to believe that Downey should be taken to the hospital for evaluation.
Downey refused to go to the hospital, telling the responding officers that he
“just wanted to stay at home and drink his beer.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p.
27. At some point, however, Downey attempted to leave the residence. As he
did so, he approached a police officer who was standing in the doorway. In an
attempt to get by the officer, Downey “grabbed [the officer’s] right wrist” and
pulled his arm. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. Downey also scuffled with other officers as
they attempted to restrain him. Eventually, Downey was placed under arrest.
[5] On August 5, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) charged
Downey under Cause No. F5-712 with Level 5 felony criminal confinement,
Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official, Class A misdemeanor
battery resulting in bodily injury, Class A misdemeanor interference with
reporting a crime, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 4 of 10
Downey was subsequently released on bond while awaiting trial and was
ordered to have no contact with Hicks.3
[6] Meanwhile, in Cause Nos. CM-4 and CM-326, the State had charged Downey
with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and Class B misdemeanor
public intoxication. Downey subsequently indicated that he wished to plead
guilty to all of the charges contained in Cause Nos. F5-712, CM-4, and CM-
326. The trial court conducted a joint guilty plea and sentencing hearing on
June 14, 2017. During this hearing, the trial court found the factual basis to be
sufficient and accepted Downey’s guilty pleas.
[7] During the sentencing phase of the hearing, Downey indicated that prior to
sentencing, he had been placed at the New Castle Correctional Facility. While
at the New Castle Correctional Facility, Downey received treatment for his
mental health issues and became compliant with his medication. Downey
further indicated during sentencing that he believed his placement at the New
Castle Correction facility had “helped” him. Tr. Vol. II, p. 17. Also during the
sentencing phase of the hearing, Hicks indicated that she believed Downey
required treatment for his mental condition as well has his drug and alcohol
abuse. She further indicated that Downey would no longer be welcome to live
3
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Downey’s bail. It appears that this motion was granted as
Downey was in custody as of the date of the joint guilty plea and sentencing hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 5 of 10
with her because while she loves her son “very much,” she “just cannot deal
with this anymore.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 23.
[8] Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order in which it accepted
Downey’s guilty pleas and sentenced Downey. The trial court sentenced
Downey to time served in both Cause No. CM-4 and CM-326. In Cause No.
F5-712, the trial court sentenced Downey to an aggregate three-year term with
two years and three months executed and the remaining nine months
suspended to probation. In sentencing Downey, the trial court recommended
that Downey “be placed at the New Castle Correctional Facility and receive
mental health treatment during the term of his incarceration.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. III, p. 16.
Discussion and Decision4
[9] Downey contends that the three-year sentence imposed in Cause No. F5-712 is
inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The Court may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate less on
4
We note that while Downey introduces his contention on appeal as whether the trial court abused its
discretion in sentencing him, his entire argument relates to whether his sentence is inappropriate. We will
therefore consider Downey’s challenge on appeal as an appropriateness challenge rather than an abuse of
discretion challenge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 6 of 10
comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical,
and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for
which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the
defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
(quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied).
The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is
inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[10] With respect to the nature of Downey’s offenses, the record reveals that
Downey battered his own mother, causing injuries to her wrist. He also
confined her to the couch in an attempt to stop her from calling 911. Once
officers arrived at the residence, Downey grabbed one of the responding officers
by the wrist and attempted to pull the officer away from his position by the
door. Downey continued to demonstrate combative behavior by scuffling with
several officers as they attempted to place him in restraints.
[11] As for his character, the record reveals that Downey has a criminal history
which includes both felony and misdemeanor convictions. Downey’s criminal
history includes felony convictions for possession of a schedule I, II, III, or IV
controlled substance; intimidation; and possession of two or more precursors
for the manufacture of methamphetamine. It includes misdemeanor
convictions for possession of marijuana, illegal possession of an alcoholic
beverage, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, illegal consumption of an
alcoholic beverage, and check deception.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 7 of 10
[12] The record also reveals that Downey is either unwilling or unable to follow
both (1) the laws of this state and (2) rules and procedures aimed at
rehabilitation. Downey was released on bond when he committed the charges
filed under Cause Nos. CM-4 and CM-326. In addition, documents detailing
Downey’s criminal history reveal that while he has previously been placed on
probation, he has, on numerous occasions, committed violations of the terms of
his probation. Further, the Indiana Risk Assessment System–Static Tool
indicates that Downey is “in the VERY HIGH risk category to reoffend.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. IV–Confidential, p. 10.
[13] Furthermore, to the extent that Downey argues that his sentence is
inappropriate merely because he was ordered to serve an executed portion in
the Department of Correction (“DOC”) as opposed to Community Corrections,
we disagree.
The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate
focus for application of our review and revise authority.
Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). It is not,
however, subject to review for abuse of discretion. See id.Nonetheless, we note that it will be quite difficult for a defendant
to prevail on a claim that the placement of his sentence is
inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). This is because the question under Appellate Rule
7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather,
the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.
Id. at 344. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence
must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate.
Id. As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of
alternative placements in particular counties or communities. Id.
at 343. For example, a court is aware of the availability, costs,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 8 of 10
and entrance requirements of community corrections placements
in a specific locale. Id. at 343–44.
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267–68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[14] In the instant matter, the trial court recognized that Downey’s mental state
likely contributed to his criminal behavior, finding his mental illness to be a
mitigating factor during sentencing. Also, in ordering that two years and three
months of Downey’s three-year sentence be executed in DOC, the trial court
recommended that Downey be placed at the New Castle Correctional Facility
so that Downey could receive mental health treatment during his term of
incarceration. Downey does not specify what treatment he requires that is not
available through DOC. Further, the record reveals that Downey had been
placed in the New Castle Correctional Facility while awaiting sentencing and
that as of the date of sentencing, Downey was compliant with his medication
and his mental state seemed to have stabilized.
[15] Again, Downey bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is
inappropriate. Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176. Upon review, we conclude that
Downey has failed to convince us that his three-year sentence is inappropriate
in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Downey has also failed
to convince us that his placement in DOC is inappropriate. As such, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
[16] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 9 of 10
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A04-1709-CR-2167 | February 8, 2018 Page 10 of 10