Kyla Taylor 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 Jul 16 2019, 10:07 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
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
– Appellate Division Evan Matthew Comer
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kyla Taylor, July 16, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-3149
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David M. Hooper,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1806-CM-19620
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Kyla Taylor (“Taylor”) pleaded guilty in Marion Superior Court to Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court sentenced
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Taylor to 365 days, with two days credit time and 363 days suspended. The trial
court ordered 180 days of non-reporting probation. Taylor appeals and argues
her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In November 2017, Taylor purchased a handgun for personal protection. Tr. p.
9. She worked in adult entertainment and frequently encountered harassment
from customers after her shift ended. Id. She did not obtain a handgun permit.
Id. at 6.
[3] On June 18, 2018, Taylor lent her phone to a group of men at a gas station. Id.
at 9. She did not know the men and was unaware that the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was searching for the men in connection with
a stolen vehicle. Id., Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police arrived at the scene
while Taylor was standing next to the stolen vehicle and wanted men.
Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police detained and searched Taylor. Id. She told
the police that she had a handgun in her purse and stated she had never
attempted to obtain a permit. Id. The police confirmed Taylor did not have a
valid handgun permit and placed her under arrest. Id.
[4] Taylor was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Id. at 16. The trial court
gave the following sentencing statement:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Well, this is difficult. I understand how seriously the State takes
its gun charges. And, requesting some sort of probation makes
sense. I completely understand the defendant’s story. . . She just
should have got [sic] a permit. . . She has no criminal history and
she’s obviously indigent. I don’t think she’s likely to reoffend. . .
We’re just going to make sure, Ms. Taylor, yeah, that you are not
going to reoffend; okay? So there’s going to be time hanging over
your head if you violate non-reporting probation for six
months…[A]ll you’ve got to do is not get in trouble.
Tr. pp. 12–13. The trial court sentenced Taylor to 365 days, with two days
credit time and 363 days suspended. Id. at 13. She was also given 180 days of
non-reporting probation. Id. The trial judge ordered Taylor’s handgun returned
to her as long as she could legally carry the gun. Id. at 14. Taylor now appeals,
arguing her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Appellate courts may revise a sentence if the court finds the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The question is whether the defendant’s
sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence is more appropriate.
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The principal role of
Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers” rather than to “achieve a perceived ‘correct’
result[.]” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Appellate courts
thus conduct Rule 7(B) sentencing review with substantial deference to the trial
court’s sentencing decision. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5
Taylor argues that her sentence is inappropriately harsh because the trial court
imposed the maximum allowable sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 6. A defendant
convicted of a Class A misdemeanor faces a maximum term of incarceration for
one year. Ind Code § 35-50-3-2. Taylor was sentenced to 365 days.
[6] In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may consider
all aspects of a defendant’s sentence, including whether a portion of the
sentence is suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
[7] Although Taylor received a 365-day sentence, 363 days were suspended, and
she spent a single day in jail. In regard to the nature of the offense, we cannot
conclude that a serving a single day in jail is an inappropriately harsh sentence
for carrying an unlicensed handgun in violation of the law. In regard to the
nature of the offender, the trial court noted that Taylor has no adult criminal
history and is unlikely to reoffend. Although the suspended sentence leaves
open the possibility that Taylor could serve the full term of her sentence, a
combination of a suspended sentence and probation can serve as an incentive to
encourage good behavior. See Jennings v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1003, 1008–09 (Ind.
2003). As long as Taylor does not reoffend, she will have served a single day of
jail time. A 365-day sentence with 363 days suspended and six months of non-
reporting probation is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
the character of the offender.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[8] Affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5