Sheila Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
May 16 2016, 9:42 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
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
Steven Ripstra Gregory F. Zoeller
Ripstra Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Jasper, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sheila Taylor, May 16, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
51A04-1509-CR-1376
v. Appeal from the Martin Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynne Ellis, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
51C01-1501-F4-12
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Sheila Taylor appeals her six year sentence for conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamines.1 We affirm.
Issues
[2] Taylor presents two issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing;
and
II. Whether Taylor’s six year sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Taylor pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamines, a Level 4 felony. Pursuant to her plea agreement, Taylor’s
sentence was capped at the advisory sentence of six years.2 At the sentencing
hearing, Taylor offered her own unsworn statement and testimony from five
witnesses to emphasize her efforts toward rehabilitation and also the effect
incarceration would have on her nine-year-old son. The trial court found
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-1.1, 35-41-5-2.
2
I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 2 of 6
Taylor’s history and commission of crime while on probation to be aggravating
factors, and imposed the advisory sentence. Taylor appealed.
Discussion and Decision
Abuse of Discretion
[4] In the sentencing hearing, Taylor’s counsel argued for leniency because of
Taylor’s cooperation with court orders and being “on track for rehabilitation,”
as well as the effect Taylor’s incarceration would have upon her son. (Tr. 81-
82.) Taylor now claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
specifically recognize these circumstances and her guilty plea as mitigators.
[5] “[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and
are reviewed on appeal only for abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), decision clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218. Abuse of
discretion occurs if the decision is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom.’” Id. Where the court has imposed an
advisory sentence, the defendant has a “particularly heavy burden” to prove
such an abuse of discretion. Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212, 1216 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied. One way a court can abuse its discretion is to omit a
mitigating factor advanced by the defense when the mitigating factor is both
significant and clearly supported by the record. Crawley v. State, 677 N.E.2d 520,
523 (Ind. 1997); Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490-91. However, the trial court is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 3 of 6
not required to explain why it has declined to recognize a particular factor as
mitigating. Id. at 493.
[6] Taylor did not establish that the effect of her incarceration on her son would be
disproportionate in comparison to children of other incarcerated parents. Thus
the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to find hardship to Taylor’s son
to be a significant mitigating circumstance. See Weaver v. State, 845 N.E.2d
1066, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
[7] As for Taylor’s compliance with court orders and post-arrest rehabilitation
efforts, the evidence was conflicting. While Taylor participated in some
treatment programs after her arrest, she did not complete the mandatory relapse
prevention classes.
[8] Taylor pled guilty, for which she received a significant benefit. Two other
charges were dismissed and her sentence was capped at the advisory sentence.
Taylor’s decision to plead guilty may properly be considered a pragmatic
decision as opposed to a mitigating factor. See Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 220-
21.
[9] The sentence imposed was neither unlawful nor outside of the statutory range,
and the trial court did not refuse to recognize a clearly advanced and significant
mitigating circumstance. We do not find any abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 4 of 6
Inappropriateness of Sentence
[10] Taylor asserts that her six year sentence is inappropriate and deserves revision.
We disagree.
[11] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution
permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences was implemented
by the Indiana Supreme Court through Appellate Rule 7(B). We 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
The primary purpose in this type of review is to “leaven the outliers” and focus
on the aggregate sentence for the crime(s) committed. Caldwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1125 (Ind. 2008). The appellant bears the burden of
“persuad[ing] the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this
inappropriateness standard of review.” Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630
(Ind. 2012) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)).
[12] The nature of the offense is that Taylor conspired to deal methamphetamine, in
an amount of one to five grams. There are no significant facts in the record that
would lead us to depart from the advisory sentence.
[13] As to Taylor’s character, she has eight criminal convictions and one juvenile
adjudication. Her record includes convictions for: criminal mischief, drunk
driving, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, intimidation, and conversion.
She was also convicted of forgery, a class C felony, in January 2013. One year
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 5 of 6
of this forgery sentence was suspended and Taylor was ordered to serve the
balance through an adult day reporting program. Despite this leniency,
however, Taylor committed the present offense while serving her day reporting
sentence. Taylor’s charges and convictions show an escalating pattern of
criminal behavior. Taylor’s advisory sentence is not inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and her character.
Conclusion
[14] The trial court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence is not inappropriate.
[15] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 51A04-1509-CR-1376 | May 16, 2016 Page 6 of 6