Kevin D. Morris v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •  Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before
    Dec 30 2014, 8:25 am
    any 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:
    DAVID M. ZENT                                        GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill                    Attorney General of Indiana
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    KENNETH E. BIGGINS
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    KEVIN D. MORRIS,                                     )
    )
    Appellant/Defendant,                          )
    )
    vs.                                   )        No. 02A03-1406-CR-216
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                    )
    )
    Appellee/Plaintiff.                           )
    APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
    Cause No. 02D05-1307-FC-228
    December 30, 2014
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    VAIDIK, Chief Judge
    Case Summary
    The State charged Kevin Morris with Class C felony battery and Class D felony
    criminal recklessness after he stabbed his fiancée’s father. A jury found Morris guilty as
    charged and determined that he was a habitual offender, and Morris received a twenty-
    year aggregate sentence. He now appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate in
    light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Because we conclude that Morris’s
    sentence is appropriate, we affirm the trial court.
    Facts and Procedural History
    In July 2013 Morris and Anthony Gooden were involved in a fight over Nicole
    Gooden, Anthony’s daughter and Morris’s fiancée. At some point during the fight,
    Morris pulled out a three-inch pocket knife and stabbed Anthony four times, puncturing
    one of Anthony’s lungs. Anthony was hospitalized for two months and incurred more
    than $30,000 in medical bills.
    The State charged Morris with Class C felony battery and Class D felony criminal
    recklessness and alleged that he was a habitual offender. A jury found Morris guilty as
    charged and determined that he was a habitual offender. When sentencing Morris, the
    trial court found no mitigating circumstances. Sent. Tr. p. 25-26. The court did find
    aggravating circumstances, however, including Morris’s previous convictions for Class C
    felony battery (2000), Class D felony possession of cocaine (2003), and Class C felony
    battery (2008); misdemeanor convictions for false reporting/informing (2000 and 2002)
    and driving without a license (1999); juvenile adjudication for what would have been
    2
    false reporting/informing if committed by an adult;1 and unsuccessful experiences with
    alternative sentencing, including suspended sentencing and parole. See id. at 26-28;
    Presentence Investigation Report p. 4-6.
    The trial court sentenced Morris to an aggregate twenty-year term: eight years for
    battery, enhanced by twelve years for being a habitual offender, and a three-year
    concurrent term for criminal recklessness.
    Morris now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    Morris contends that his sentence is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution
    authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing
    decisions. Brown v. State, 
    10 N.E.3d 1
    , 4 (Ind. 2014). We implement this authority
    through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by
    statute       if,   after    due     consideration   of   the   trial   court’s   decision,    we     find
    the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
    offender.           
    Id.
         Morris     bears   the    burden     on     appeal     of    proving      that
    his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
    and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
    of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
    Cardwell v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    , 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—
    1
    According to Morris, he also has juvenile adjudications for robbery, assault with a firearm, and
    exhibiting a firearm. See Sent. Tr. p. 26 (“You’ve also self-reported . . . having a juvenile record in
    Orange County, California, apparently for Robbery, Assault with a Firearm on a Person and Exhibiting a
    Firearm. There’s no information in the PSI that supports that other than your self-reported self-admission
    . . . .”).
    3
    the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of
    counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” 
    Id.
     Whether a sentence is
    inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the
    crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a
    given case. Id. at 1224. In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts
    may take into account whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended or is
    otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial judge.
    Davidson v. State, 
    926 N.E.2d 1023
    , 1025 (Ind. 2010). These tools include probation,
    home detention, placement in a community-corrections program, executed time in a
    Department of Correction facility, concurrent rather than consecutive sentences, and
    restitution/fines. 
    Id.
    At the time Morris committed the underlying offenses, the sentencing range for a
    Class C felony was between six and twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years.
    
    Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-5
     (West 2012). The sentencing range for a Class D felony was
    six months to three years, with one and one-half years being the advisory term. 
    Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-7
     (West 2012). Because Morris was found to be a habitual offender, the
    trial court was required to sentence him to an “additional fixed term that is not less than
    the advisory sentence for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the
    advisory sentence for the underlying offense.” 
    Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-8
    (h) (West
    2012). Here, the trial court sentenced Morris to an aggregate twenty-year term: eight
    years for Class C felony battery, enhanced by twelve years for being a habitual offender,
    4
    and a three-year concurrent term for Class D felony criminal recklessness. This sentence
    is within the statutory range.
    The nature of the offenses is serious. Morris stabbed Anthony, his fiancée’s
    father, four times during a fight. One stab wound punctured Anthony’s lung. Anthony
    was hospitalized for two months and incurred more than $30,000 in medical bills.
    Morris’s character does not help his cause. This is Morris’s third Class C felony
    battery conviction. He also has a felony conviction for possession of cocaine,
    misdemeanor convictions for false reporting/informing and driving without a license, and
    a juvenile adjudication for what would have been false reporting/informing if committed
    by an adult. In addition, Morris’s Presentence Investigation Report indicates that he is at
    a very high risk of reoffending. PSI p. 9. Morris failed to take advantage of alternative
    sentencing when it was offered to him—his parole was revoked in 2002 and twice he
    received a suspended sentence that was later reinstated due to his failure to comply with
    probation or other legal requirements. See 
    id. at 4-6
    . Despite many opportunities to
    reform his conduct, Morris continues to engage in criminal behavior.
    Finally, Morris’s claim that his sentence is inappropriate because he is not “among
    the very worst offenders and . . . he did not commit[] one of the very worst offenses,”
    Appellant’s Br. p. 7, is not persuasive because Morris did not receive the maximum
    sentence.   The trial court could have sentenced Morris to an aggregate sentence of
    twenty-three years; instead, the court ordered Morris’s three-year sentence for criminal
    recklessness to be served concurrent to his battery/habitual-offender sentence.
    5
    Morris has failed to persuade us that his aggregate twenty-year sentence is
    inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.
    Affirmed.
    BAKER, J., and RILEY, J., concur.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02A03-1406-CR-216

Filed Date: 12/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021