Lloyd Owen May, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                                   FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                           Nov 18 2020, 7:55 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
    Michael P. DeArmitt                                     Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Columbus, Indiana                                       Attorney General of Indiana
    Steven Hosler
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Lloyd Owen May, III,                                    November 18, 2020
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    20A-CR-1170
    v.                                              Appeal from the Bartholomew
    Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable James D. Worton,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                     Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    03D01-1907-F5-3852
    Pyle, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020              Page 1 of 6
    Statement of the Case
    [1]   Lloyd Owen May III (“May”) appeals the four and one-half (4½) year sentence
    imposed after he pled guilty to Level 5 felony intimidation.1 His sole argument
    is that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
    character. Concluding that May’s sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the
    trial court.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Issue
    Whether May’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
    the offense and his character.
    Facts
    [3]   In July 2019, Steven Eubanks (“Eubanks”) saw May sitting in front of Eubanks’
    neighbor’s front door. As Eubanks approached his neighbor’s house to
    confront May, Eubanks noticed that May had plugged his cell phone into an
    exterior outlet on the neighbor’s house. Eubanks told May to stop stealing
    electricity and to leave the neighbor’s property. May stood up, pulled a knife
    out of his pocket, and swung the knife less than an inch away from Eubanks’
    face while threatening to “cut [Eubanks] up.” (App. Vol. 2 at 18). May also
    threatened to return and burn down the neighbor’s house. As he walked away
    1
    I.C. § 35-45-2-1.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020   Page 2 of 6
    from the neighbor’s house, May turned around and yelled, “I’ll be back.”
    (App. Vol. 2 at 18). Eubanks contacted the police, who located May near the
    neighbor’s house. May admitted that he had used methamphetamine that day.
    [4]   The State charged May with Level 5 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony
    possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a
    syringe, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In April 2020,
    May pled guilty to Level 5 felony intimidation, and the State dismissed the
    remaining charges.
    [5]   At May’s sentencing hearing, May’s pre-sentence investigation report revealed
    that May has an extensive criminal history that includes eight prior felony
    convictions and twelve prior misdemeanor convictions. The felony
    convictions, which occurred in both Indiana and Florida, include multiple
    convictions for intimidation as well as convictions for strangulation, possession
    of a controlled substance without a prescription, possession of a weapon, and
    receiving stolen property. The misdemeanor convictions include multiple
    convictions for battery and resisting law enforcement. May’s pre-sentence
    investigation report also revealed multiple probation violations and that May
    had had the opportunity to participate in substance abuse treatment outside of a
    penal facility and had not successfully completed the treatment program. In
    addition, May was on parole for a prior intimidation conviction when he
    committed the intimidation offense in this case. The State further pointed out
    that May had accrued two jail violations for battery and one jail violation for
    intimidation while incarcerated for the offense in this case.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020   Page 3 of 6
    [6]   At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced May to four and
    one-half (4½) years in the Department of Correction. May now appeals his
    sentence.
    Decision
    [7]   May argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
    provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due
    consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is
    inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
    offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his
    sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on 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 v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    , 1224 (Ind. 2008).
    [8]   The Indiana Supreme Court has further explained that “[s]entencing is
    principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should
    receive considerable deference.” 
    Id. at 1222
    . “Such deference should prevail
    unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the
    nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of
    brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or
    persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 
    29 N.E.3d 111
    , 122
    (Ind. 2015).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020   Page 4 of 6
    [9]    When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is
    the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
    crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Here, May pled guilty to a
    Level 5 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one (1) to six (6)
    years, and the advisory sentence is three (3) years. IND. CODE § 35-50-2-6.
    Here, the trial court sentenced May to four and one-half (4½) years, which is
    less than the maximum sentence.
    [10]   Regarding the nature of the offense, we note that when Eubanks asked May to
    leave Eubanks’ neighbor’s property, May stood up, pulled a knife out of his
    pocket, and swung the knife less than an inch away from Eubanks’ face while
    threatening to “cut [Eubanks] up.” (App. Vol. 2 at 18). May also threatened to
    return and burn down the neighbor’s house.
    [11]   As for May’s character, May has an extensive criminal history that includes
    eight prior felony convictions and twelve prior misdemeanor convictions.
    Several of the felony convictions were for intimidation, which is the offense to
    which May pled guilty in this case. In addition, May accrued three jail
    violations, including one for intimidation, while incarcerated for the offense in
    this case. May’s former contacts with the law have not caused him to reform
    himself. See Jenkins v. State, 
    909 N.E.2d 1080
    , 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans.
    denied. May has failed to persuade this Court that his four and one-half (4½)
    year sentence is inappropriate.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020   Page 5 of 6
    [12]   Affirmed.
    Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1170 | November 18, 2020   Page 6 of 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20A-CR-1170

Filed Date: 11/18/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/18/2020