Mason S. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Jun 21 2017, 8:37 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC. Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Elizabeth M. Littlejohn
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mason S. Crockett, June 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1701-CR-20
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David R. Bolk,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1606-MR-1626
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Mason S. Crockett was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing his
brother. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years. He now appeals
arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. Because Mason has failed to
persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2016, Mason and his then-girlfriend, Kylee, lived with their three children in
Terre Haute. When Mason’s brother, Zachary Crockett, was released from jail,
Mason and Kylee allowed him to move in with them. Shortly thereafter,
Zachary and Kylee became romantically involved, which led Mason to move
out. Despite moving out, Mason continued to financially support the
household. Mason gave Kylee their shared car because of their children,
continued to pay rent and utilities, and provided groceries for the household.
[3] On May 16, 2016, the brothers got into a fight in response to Zachary’s
interference with Mason’s visitation with his children. Mason was arrested and
pled guilty to battery the following week. He was placed on probation.
[4] Around 8:00 p.m. on June 16 Mason went to Kylee’s house to pick up some
personal items. Zachary was there at the time. Mason, intoxicated, confronted
Zachary about a recent incident where he physically abused Kylee and one of
the children. Another fight ensued between the brothers. Toward the end of
the fight, Zachary began “taunting” Mason about his romantic relationship
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5
with Kylee. Tr. Vol. III pp. 45-46. Mason stabbed Zachary in the chest and
left.
[5] After the stabbing, Mason did not call 911 or otherwise seek help for his
brother. Around 2:00 a.m., Mason called his mother, who lived in Tennessee,
and told her that “he stabbed Zachary.” Tr. Vol. III p. 18. However, Mason
would not tell her where he left Zachary or give her the house address. She
eventually received the address from Kylee and called the Sheriff’s Office.
[6] A deputy from the Vigo County Sheriff’s Office went to Kylee’s house around
10:00 a.m. to conduct a welfare check for Zachary. Zachary’s body was found
around noon. Mason was arrested later that day. The State charged Mason
with murder and Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter. Mason and the State
entered a plea agreement, whereby Mason would plead guilty to voluntary
manslaughter and the State would dismiss the murder charge. Pursuant to the
agreement, the sentence could not exceed twenty-five years.
[7] At the sentencing hearing, the court identified three aggravating circumstances:
(1) Mason’s prior criminal history; (2) the fact that he was on probation at the
time of the offense; and (3) that Mason was convicted of battering Zachary
about thirty days before the stabbing. The trial court identified two mitigating
circumstances: (1) Mason pled guilty and took responsibility for the crime and
(2) he was remorseful for his actions. The court sentenced Mason to twenty
years.
[8] Mason now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[9] Mason contends that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the
“unremarkable nature of his offense” and his “notable character.” Appellant’s
Br. p. 4. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and
revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision. Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4
(Ind. 2014). This Court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after
due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence
is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
defendant.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “A defendant must persuade the
appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard
of review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[10] 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). “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.” Thompson v. State, 5
N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
[11] A person who commits a Level 2 felony must be imprisoned for a fixed term of
between ten and thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen-and-a half
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. The trial court sentenced Mason to twenty
years, which is slightly above the advisory term.
[12] Mason concedes that the offense is “serious.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. However,
he contends that the offense is not “as egregious as other killings.” Id. To the
contrary, an intoxicated Mason stabbed his brother and did not seek help for
him afterwards. Mason testified that “it looked like [Zachary] saw death itself,”
yet he still did not call 911. Tr. Vol. III p. 46. Moreover, Mason told his
mother that he stabbed his brother but refused to give his whereabouts.
Zachary’s body was not found until about sixteen hours later.
[13] Mason’s character does not fare much better. Since the age of fifteen, Mason
has been committing crimes, which have become more violent over time. At
the time of sentencing, Mason “had two juvenile adjudications, two prior
felonies and three misdemeanor convictions.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 58-59. In
addition, at the time of stabbing, Mason was on probation for battering his
brother a mere thirty days earlier.
[14] Given the nature of this crime and Mason’s criminal history, we conclude that
his twenty-year sentence is not inappropriate.
[15] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5