Teddy E. Shoffner 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 Feb 08 2019, 8:09 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
Steven Knecht Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Vonderheide & Knecht, PC Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Teddy E. Shoffner, February 8, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1622
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sean M. Persin,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79C01-1704-F2-7
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 1 of 8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Teddy Shoffner (Shoffner), appeals his sentence for
conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony, Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-4.5.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Shoffner presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether Shoffner’s
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On April 26, 2017, officers from the Tippecanoe County Drug Task Force went
to an apartment in Lafayette, Indiana, to investigate “numerous complaints and
tips that [they] had received about . . . drug use and drug sales.” (Transcript
Vol. II, p. 102). When the officers arrived at the apartment building, they
encountered Shoffner in the driveway parallel to the apartment in question.
Shoffner was fixing the stereo of his Ford truck, and he informed the officers
that he did not live at the apartment but had permission work on his truck.
[5] The officers proceeded to the apartment and knocked on the door. Jennifer
Johnson (Johnson) opened the door, and the officers conveyed the purpose for
their visit. Johnson welcomed the officers and consented to the search of her
apartment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 2 of 8
[6] During the search, the officers found a container with a false bottom on the
bedroom nightstand. Inside the container, the officers retrieved multiple
baggies containing what was later determined to be methamphetamine.
Beneath the container, there was a receipt from AutoZone dated April 25, 2016,
with Shoffner’s name. The officers additionally found a black digital scale in
the bedroom. Inside Johnson’s purse, the officers found a small baggie
containing a white substance, which later was determined to be heroin. Also
inside Johnson’s purse, there were three notebooks which had “names, dates[,]
and dollar amounts.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 114). According to the officers, the
notebook appeared to be a “drug debt ledger.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 115). When
confronted with the apparent heroin in her purse, Johnson admitted that the
heroin was for personal use, and she proceeded to show the officers her “kit”
which was in the bathroom. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 107). The kit had two hypodermic
needles, a metal spoon with burnt residue, and a lighter.
[7] After searching Johnson’s apartment, the officers went outside to talk with
Shoffner who was still busy working on the truck stereo. A K-9 officer that was
outside alerted the other officers to the presence of narcotics in Shoffner’s Ford
truck. After obtaining a warrant, the officers searched Shoffner’s truck. Inside
a tool box that was in the bed of the truck, the officers found a couple of new
syringes, a digital scale, several ziplocked bags containing drugs, and a “one
hitter box” for smoking marijuana. (Tr. Vol. II p. 224).
[8] On April 28, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Shoffner with Count
I, dealing in methamphetamine of 10 grams or more, a Level 2 felony; Count
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 3 of 8
II, possession of methamphetamine of 28 grams or more, a Level 3 felony; and
Count III, unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony. On January 11,
2018, the State added another Count, conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamine of at least 10 grams, a Level 2 felony.
[9] A two-day jury trial was held on March 9 through March 10, 2018. Johnson
testified that although she was the only person listed on the lease to her
apartment, Shoffner lived with her in April 2017. Johnson testified that at the
time, she and Shoffner were unemployed, but Shoffner settled all the house
bills. Johnson testified that Shoffner would buy and sell “meth and heroin” to
make money. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 142). Johnson added that Shoffner would
package the drugs in small “zip baggies” and from time to time they would
make courtesy deliveries. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 143). Johnson additionally testified
that some drug sales would occur inside her apartment. To keep track of the
drug sales, Johnson stated that they maintained several ledgers “because there
was a lot of people who owed a lot of money and there was no way to
remember all of that.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 144).
[10] At the close of the evidence, the jury found Shoffner guilty of Count V,
conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine of at least 10 grams, a
Level 2 felony, but returned a hung verdict on the remaining charges. The State
later dismissed the other charges. On June 4, 2018, the trial court sentenced
Shoffner to twenty years, with thirteen years to be served in the Department of
Correction (DOC), three years in community corrections, and four years
suspended to supervised probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 4 of 8
[11] Shoffner now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[12] Shoffner contends that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers
us to independently review and revise sentences authorized by statute if, after
due consideration, we find the trial court’s decision inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d
1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007). The “nature of offense” compares the defendant’s
actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged
offense, while the “character of the offender” permits a broader consideration of
the defendant’s character. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008);
Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An appellant bears
the burden of showing that both prongs of the inquiry favor a revision of his
sentence. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we
regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a given case.
Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Our court focuses on “the length of the aggregate
sentence and how it is to be served.” Id.
[13] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016,
1019 (Ind. 2012). The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten to thirty
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 5 of 8
years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. I.C. § 35-50-
2-4.5. Shoffner was sentenced to twenty years in the DOC.
[14] The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the
commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Croy v. State, 953
N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The evidence at trial was that Shoffner
and Johnson were involved in a well-established drug dealing operation.
During the search, the officers located a three-volume drug ledger, multiple
digital scales, several ziplocked bags of drugs—both in Johnson’s apartment
and Shoffner’s Ford truck.
[15] With respect to Shoffner’s character, at the time of his sentencing, Shoffner was
only thirty-two years old, and he had already accumulated an extensive
criminal history. Starting in 2005, Shoffner was convicted of theft. In 2010, he
was convicted for possessing marijuana. The following year, Shoffner was
convicted of criminal mischief, and a no-contact order was issued. In 2012, he
was convicted for interference with reporting a crime, and a second no-contact
order was issued against him. Shoffner has had three petitions to revoke his
probation filed against him, with one having been revoked. While released on
bond in this case, Shoffner committed more crimes in Tippecanoe County for
possession of methamphetamine, criminal confinement, and domestic battery.
Also, in Fountain County, he was facing charges of dealing in
methamphetamine, conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, and
driving while suspended with a prior conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 6 of 8
[16] Shoffner also has a significant history of drug abuse despite two prior court
orders for drug counseling. In the presentencing report, Shoffner reported that
he first began using drugs at age eighteen and his last use was in December
2017. Shoffner confessed that on a daily basis, he used marijuana,
methamphetamine, and Adderall, and on occasion, he used synthetic
marijuana, cocaine, mushroom, and heroin.
[17] Shoffner makes a last unavailing argument by stating that his “sentence is in
excess of the advisory term.” (Appellant Br. p. 16). While Shoffner’s twenty-
year sentence exceeds the advisory sentence, Shoffner also received a significant
benefit in alternative placements. The trial court ordered Shoffner to serve
thirteen years in the DOC, and the remaining years were to be served through
community corrections and probation. See Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010) (holding that we “may consider all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the defendant,”
including the fact a portion of the sentence is suspended to probation or
otherwise crafted using a variety of sentencing tools available to the trial court).
[18] Under the circumstances, Shoffner has not convinced us that his twenty-year
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character.
Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court.
CONCLUSION
[19] Based on the above, we conclude that Shoffner’s sentence is not inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 7 of 8
[20] Affirmed.
[21] Kirsch, J. and Robb, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 8 of 8