Lisa A. Medsker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 29 2016, 9:30 am
regarded as precedent or cited before 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
Amanda O. Blackketter Gregory F. Zoeller
Blackketter Law, Inc. Attorney General of Indiana
Shelbyville, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lisa A. Medsker, January 29, 2016
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Cause No.
73A04-1506-CR-668
v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David N. Riggins,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
73D02-1504-F6-112
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Lisa Medsker appeals her two-year sentence for Class A misdemeanor theft and
two counts of Level 6 felony theft. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Medsker raises one issue, which we restate as whether her sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
[3] In 2015, Medsker, her husband, and her three children were in the process of
moving and were living with Medsker’s in-laws in Shelby County. On three
separate occasions, while her in-laws were on vacation, Medsker took several
items belonging to her in-laws, including tools, a camera, and a laptop, and
pawned them in Indianapolis. Medsker then reported to police that her in-laws’
home had been burglarized. Medsker later admitted to stealing those items,
which were recovered from the pawnshop and returned to Medsker’s in-laws.
[4] The State charged Medsker with one count of Class A misdemeanor theft
related to the tools and two counts of Level 6 felony theft based on the value of
the camera and laptop. Medsker pled guilty and, after considering her criminal
history and position of trust, the trial court sentenced Medsker to eighty-one
days on the misdemeanor charge and to two years on each of the felony
charges. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 5
ordered Medsker to serve 545 days executed, and suspended the remaining 185
days to probation. Medsker now appeals.
Analysis
[5] Medsker argues that her two-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B) permits us to 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 offenses and the character of the
offender. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely”
deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due
consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears
the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate.” Id.
[6] The principal role of Appellate 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—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 crimes,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 5
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence
under Appellate Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including
whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d
1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
[7] As an initial matter, we note that the trial court suspended approximately six
months of Medsker’s two-year sentence to probation, requiring her to serve
only 545 days executed for one misdemeanor and two felony convictions.
[8] Regarding the nature of the offense, Medsker, on multiple occasions, stole items
from her in-laws and pawned them to get money to support her heroin habit.
She did so after her in-laws had opened their home to Medsker and her family
while they were in the process of moving. Medsker then reported a burglary to
police, presumably in an attempt to cover up her criminal activity.
[9] Regarding her character, Medsker was remorseful during the sentencing hearing
and pled guilty to the charges. Nevertheless, Medsker’s criminal history
includes a felony conviction for burglary and a conviction for check deception.
Clearly, Medsker has little regard for other people’s property. Although
Medsker explained that she committed the crimes to support her heroin
addiction, which she developed after having been prescribed pain pills, this does
not positively reflect on her character in that she admitted to using heroin for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 5
eighteen months. Neither the nature of the offense nor Medsker’s character
warrants a reduction of her sentence.
Conclusion
[10] Medsker’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
the character of the offender. We affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 5