Matthew Weeks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                    FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                Oct 14 2016, 9:02 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                 CLERK
    court except for the purpose of establishing                          Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Derick W. Steele                                         Gregory F. Zoeller
    Deputy Public Defender                                   Attorney General of Indiana
    Kokomo, Indiana
    Christina D. Pace
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Matthew Weeks,                                           October 14, 2016
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    34A02-1603-CR-528
    v.                                               Appeal from the Howard Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable George A.
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                       Hopkins, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    34D04-1507-F1-81
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1603-CR-528 | October 14, 2016        Page 1 of 4
    [1]   Matthew Weeks appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after Weeks
    was convicted of Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter. Weeks argues that the
    sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
    Finding the sentence not inappropriate, we affirm.
    Facts
    [2]   On the evening of July 2, 2015, forty-two-year-old Weeks went to William
    Shadle’s residence to make contact with Shadle’s wife, Kandice, with whom
    Weeks was involved in an intimate relationship. Weeks peered through the
    northwest window of Shadle’s home. Shadle, who was seventy-four years old,
    saw Weeks looking through the window and confronted him through the screen
    door.
    [3]   Weeks claimed that Shadle opened the screen door and threw hot water on
    him. Weeks, angry, entered the residence through the side door. According to
    Weeks, Shadle confronted him with a knife. Weeks knocked the knife from
    Shadle’s hand and repeatedly struck Shadle in the face, mouth, and ribs,
    knocking Shadle to the ground and rendering him immobile and unresponsive.
    Weeks fled the scene. Witnesses who had observed Weeks enter and then flee
    the residence went to check on the welfare of the occupants. They found
    Shadle unconscious, face-down, in a pool of blood, and called 911. Shadle died
    on July 30, 2015, from the injuries inflicted by Weeks.
    [4]   On July 7, 2015, the State charged Weeks with Level 1 felony burglary resulting
    in serious bodily injury. On August 11, 2015, after Shadle’s death, the State
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1603-CR-528 | October 14, 2016   Page 2 of 4
    amended the charging information to include a charge of Level 1 felony
    murder. On February 5, 2016, Weeks reached a plea agreement with the State,
    agreeing to plead guilty to Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter in exchange
    for dismissal of the remaining charges. At the sentencing hearing, which
    occurred the same day, the trial court sentenced Weeks to twenty-eight years
    imprisonment. Weeks now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    [5]   Weeks’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence imposed by the trial court
    is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana
    Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is
    inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
    offender. We must “conduct [this] review with substantial deference and give
    ‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of
    [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived
    ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v. State, 
    9 N.E.3d 1274
    , 1292 (Ind. 2014)
    (quoting Chambers v. State, 
    989 N.E.2d 1257
    , 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal
    citations omitted).
    [6]   Weeks was convicted of one Level 2 felony, meaning that he faced a sentence
    of ten to thirty years imprisonment, with an advisory term of seventeen and
    one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. The trial court imposed a sentence of
    twenty-eight years imprisonment.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1603-CR-528 | October 14, 2016   Page 3 of 4
    [7]   Turning first to the nature of the offense, Weeks was having an extramarital
    affair with Shadle’s wife and went to Shadle’s residence to find her. When
    Shadle found Weeks staring through the window of his home, he threw hot
    water on Weeks. Rather than retreat, however, Weeks opened the door,
    entered the house, knocked a knife out of Shadle’s hand, and then administered
    a fatal beating to the elderly, unarmed man. Weeks then left Shadle helpless in
    a pool of his own blood. While this offense is not, perhaps, the worst of the
    worst example of voluntary manslaughter, it does demonstrate a chilling
    capacity for violence and disregard for the well-being of others.
    [8]   As to Weeks’s character, the significance of his criminal history cannot be
    overstated. Not only does Weeks have prior convictions for neglect of a
    dependent resulting in serious bodily injury, theft, and conversion, but he also
    has a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter. And at the time he was
    sentenced in this case, he was facing charges for domestic battery, invasion of
    privacy, intimidation, and harassment. He attempted, at sentencing, to blame
    his actions on Kandice, which also reflects extremely poorly on his character.
    It is readily apparent that Weeks is a violent person with no remorse for his
    actions and no respect for the rule of law or his fellow citizens. Therefore, we
    do not find the sentence imposed by the trial court to be inappropriate in light
    of the nature of the offense and Weeks’s character.
    [9]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1603-CR-528 | October 14, 2016   Page 4 of 4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 34A02-1603-CR-528

Filed Date: 10/14/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/14/2016