Ronald Lawrence-Parker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 31 2020, 9:02 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
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald Lawrence-Parker, July 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-3031
v. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit
State of Indiana, Court
Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Jill Wesch, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
83C01-1903-F2-1
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 1 of 9
[1] Ronald Dale Lawrence-Parker challenges his fourteen-year sentence for Level 4
felony possession of methamphetamine. 1 Lawrence-Parker argues his sentence
is inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his offense. We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 13, 2019, officers from the Clinton City Police Department assisted
West Central Community Corrections agents in conducting a home check on
Lawrence-Parker, who was on pre-trial release through Vigo County
Community Corrections for separate charges, which included Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine with an amount of ten or more grams, 2 Level 4
felony possession of methamphetamine, 3 Level 4 felony unlawful possession of
a firearm by a serious violent felon,4 Level 6 felony maintaining a common
nuisance, 5 and Class B Misdemeanor possession of marijuana. 6 Officers began
to search Lawrence-Parker’s mobile home, and he stood in the living room
under the supervision of two officers. When one of the officers turned his back,
Lawrence-Parker ran into the kitchen and attempted to conceal something
inside a trashcan. Stuffed inside the trashcan the officers found three clear
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-6.1(a) & (c)(1).
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-1.1(a)(2).
3
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a).
4
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c).
5
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(c).
6
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 2 of 9
plastic bags of a crystal-like substance, which Lawrence-Parker later admitted
was methamphetamine, along with a smoking device and digital scales. In
total, the officers recovered twenty-and-a-half grams of methamphetamine from
the kitchen trashcan in Lawrence-Parker’s house.
[3] On March 14, 2019, the State charged Lawrence-Parker with Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine 7 and Level 4 felony possession of
methamphetamine. The State also alleged that Lawrence-Parker was a habitual
offender. 8 Lawrence-Parker pled guilty to the Level 4 felony possession of
methamphetamine charge and also admitted his habitual offender status in
exchange for the State’s dismissal of the Level 2 felony charge. Pursuant to the
terms of his plea, Lawrence-Parker agreed that his resulting sentence from the
present charges would be served consecutive to any additional, unrelated
sentence adjudicated separately in other pending criminal actions against him.
[4] After a hearing on November 15, 2019, the trial court sentenced Lawrence-
Parker to eight years for the Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine
conviction, with an enhancement of six years as a result of his habitual offender
status, for an aggregate executed term of fourteen years.9 In making its
7
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2).
8
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
9
We note that Lawrence-Parker, in his appeal, erroneously views his present sentence as a twenty-four year
term, and at one point, he refers to it as a thirty-four year sentence. (Br. of Appellant at 6, 8.) Pursuant to the
terms of his plea agreement, Lawrence-Parker agreed to serve his present sentence consecutive to the
sentence imposed in Cause Number 84D01-1807-F2-2334. However, this appeal concerns only Cause
Number 83C01-1903-000001, and we therefore evaluate only the fourteen-year sentence imposed herein.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 3 of 9
decision, the trial court acknowledged and took into consideration three
mitigating factors introduced by Lawrence-Parker, including his experience of
childhood trauma, his medical issues that could impose a hardship on him
during incarceration, and his guilty plea. The trial court concluded the
aggravating circumstance of his criminal history outweighed the mitigating
factors and warranted an enhanced sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[5] We will reverse Lawrence-Parker’s sentence as inappropriate only if we
determine it is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his
character. See Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) (“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.”). The nature of offense analysis compares
the defendant’s actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under
the charged offense, Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008), while
the character of the offender analysis permits a broader consideration of a
defendant’s character. Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007).
[6] Ultimately, our determination of appropriateness “turns on our sense of 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.” Cardwell,
895 N.E.2d at 1224. The task at hand is not to evaluate whether another
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 4 of 9
sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate. Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied. The defendant ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating the
inappropriateness of the sentence. Patterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1058, 1063
(Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
[7] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point for determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The
advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony is six years, with a sentencing range from
two to twelve years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. When attached to a Level 4
felony, the enhancement for a habitual offender adjudication can be six to
twenty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(1). Accordingly, the minimum sentence
Lawrence-Parker could have received was eight years, and the maximum
possible sentence was thirty-two years. The court sentenced Lawrence-Parker
to fourteen years, which is only two years above a minimally-enhanced
advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony committed by a habitual offender.
[8] One factor we consider when determining the appropriateness of a deviation
from the advisory sentence is whether there is anything more or less egregious
about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the
“typical” offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory
sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.
Lawrence-Parker’s offense occurred while he was serving pre-trial home
detention for similar charges. Further, the amount of methamphetamine found
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 5 of 9
in Lawrence-Parker’s possession was twenty-and-a-half grams, which is toward
the higher end of the permitted range of ten to twenty-eight grams necessary for
a Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine charge. While not egregious,
we hold the nature of Lawrence-Parker’s offense warrants a sentence beyond
the advisory because it was committed while he was on home detention for pre-
trial release for another offense. See Barber v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1199, 1208 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2007) (the commission of an offense while on probation is a
“significant aggravator”), trans. denied.
[9] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). However, the extent to which a defendant’s criminal history is
relevant “varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as
they relate to the current offense,” Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind.
2005), and repeated contacts with the criminal justice system reflect poorly on
the defendant’s character, because such contacts suggest the defendant “has not
been deterred [from further criminal behavior] even after having been subjected
to the police authority of the State.” Id.[10] This present offense is Lawrence-Parker’s eleventh felony conviction, and he
committed this crime while on pre-trial release. Since 1999, Lawrence-Parker
has been convicted of three counts of Class B felony burglary, 10 Class D felony
10
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 6 of 9
confinement, 11 three counts of Class D felony theft, 12 Class C felony carrying a
handgun without a license,13 Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, 14
and Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without receiving a
license; 15 in sum, Lawrence-Parker’s criminal history totals two misdemeanor
and nine felony convictions. Based on Lawrence-Parker’s record, it is evident
that he has a propensity toward crime involving violence and drugs, and that he
has not been deterred from continuing a pattern of criminal behavior through
prior punishment. See Speer v. State, 995 N.E.2d 1, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(sentences higher than the advisory not inappropriate based on defendant’s
extensive criminal history for similar offenses), trans. denied. Although
Lawrence-Parker attempts to emphasize that prior to 2018 he had a period of
sobriety and refrained from criminal behavior, we are not persuaded that this
sheds a persuasively positive light on his character given his pattern of criminal
behavior since then.
[11] Lawrence-Parker also argues his sentence is inappropriate given his unpleasant
childhood and the hardship his incarceration will impose due to his medical
condition. However, childhood trauma does not excuse a defendant’s decision
to engage in criminal behavior or eliminate his responsibility for committing
11
Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a)(1).
12
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
13
Ind. Code § 35-47-2-23(c)(2)(B).
14
Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3(a)(3).
15
Ind. Code § 9-24-18-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 7 of 9
criminal offenses. See Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)
(defendant argued that in light of his difficult early childhood, consequent later
development of behavioral and mental health issues, and substance abuse
problems, the court’s sentence was inappropriate given defendant’s character;
the court acknowledged that, although the case was tragic, his sentence was
appropriate given defendant’s charge for a similar previous offense). With
respect to Lawrence-Parker’s medical condition, we recognize the trial court is
not required to assign the same weight to the mitigating factors as did
Lawrence-Parker. Allen v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1246, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Despite these additional circumstances, we see nothing inappropriate about
Lawrence-Parker’s sentence in light of his character and continued inclination
toward criminal behavior. 16
Conclusion
[12] Lawrence-Parker’s fourteen-year sentence is not inappropriate given the nature
of his offense and his character. Lawrence-Parker committed the current
offense while serving pre-trial release home detention for a similar offense. In
16
Lawrence-Parker attempts to argue the trial court did not give sufficient credence to all four of his proposed
mitigating factors. As the task of the reviewing court is not to reweigh mitigating factors or second-guess the
trial court’s balancing of those factors, and because Lawrence-Parker did not assert the trial court abused its
discretion in the finding of mitigators, we decline to consider Lawrence-Parker’s arguments pertaining to his
history of substance abuse or his undiagnosed post-traumatic stress. See Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-
03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (defendant’s failure to fully develop a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue
on appeal), trans. denied; and see Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (party must support arguments with relevant
case law).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 8 of 9
addition, Lawrence-Parker’s character demonstrates a continued, undeterred
propensity to criminal behavior. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3031 | July 31, 2020 Page 9 of 9