Marcus J. Gary v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                       Jul 26 2017, 10:25 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                        CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Scott H. Duerring                                        Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    South Bend, Indiana                                      Attorney General of Indiana
    Christina D. Pace
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Marcus J. Gary,                                          July 26, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    20A03-1611-CR-2739
    v.                                               Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable Terry C.
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Shewmaker, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    20C01-1604-MR-3
    Bailey, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017                 Page 1 of 7
    Case Summary
    [1]   Marcus J. Gary (“Gary”) was convicted of Murder, a Felony, 1 and sentenced to
    a sixty-four-year prison term. He now appeals, raising for our review the sole
    issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
    [2]   We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   On the evening of April 17, 2016, Gary was socializing with his brother, James
    Gary (“James”), and two of James’s friends, Lavelle Evans (“Evans”) and
    Anon Burnett (“Burnett”). The four men were sitting on a porch outside of
    James’s apartment in Elkhart.
    [4]   James routinely openly carried a 9mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster that he
    wore at his side, and was wearing the holstered gun that day. Gary routinely
    carried a bag with clothes and a .44 magnum revolver. Gary had the bag with
    him on April 17, 2016, and the revolver was in his bag that day.
    [5]   At some point that evening, Gary, whom James and Anon observed to be
    acting strangely, attempted to take the 9mm pistol from James’s holster. James
    quickly removed the gun from Gary’s reach, re-holstered the gun, and told
    Gary to leave. Gary agreed to leave and called someone to ask for a ride. After
    1
    
    Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1
    .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 2 of 7
    this, James, whose infant child was inside the apartment, entered the apartment
    to prepare a bottle for the child.
    [6]   While James was inside the apartment, Gary drew his revolver from his bag
    and, without any apparent warning, fired his gun at Evans, striking Evans in
    the head. Burnett, who had been looking away from the two men and towards
    a party across the street, felt the disruption of air from the firing of the gun.
    Burnett turned and saw Evans fall from the chair in which he had been sitting,
    and saw Gary running away. James rushed from the apartment, called 911,
    and attempted to pursue Gary, who was running in the direction of James’s and
    Gary’s mother’s home, but Gary escaped.
    [7]   Evans died at the scene.
    [8]   Around midnight, Gary appeared at the home of a cousin, Wayne Barham
    (“Barham”), and the two men used marijuana together. At some point during
    Gary’s visit, he admitted to Barham that he had shot Evans.
    [9]   On the morning of April 18, 2016, Gary contacted his sometime-girlfriend,
    Meghan Zimmerman (“Zimmerman”), and asked her to pick him up from
    Barham’s apartment. Zimmerman did so and transported Gary back to her
    apartment. Zimmerman knew that something had happened at James’s home,
    and eventually persuaded Gary to allow her to take him to the Elkhart Police
    Department. Gary agreed to Zimmerman’s request. Zimmerman took Gary to
    the police station and, after being interviewed at the police station, Gary was
    arrested.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 3 of 7
    [10]   On April 25, 2016, the State charged Gary with Murder.
    [11]   Gary waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on
    August 29 and 30, 2016. At the end of the trial, the court took the matter under
    advisement. On September 23, 2016, the trial court found Gary guilty as
    charged and entered a judgment of conviction against him.
    [12]   On October 13, 2016, a sentencing hearing was conducted. At the close of the
    hearing, the trial court reiterated its entry of judgment against Gary, and
    sentenced him to sixty-four years imprisonment, with recommendations that
    Gary receive substance abuse and mental health treatment while incarcerated.
    [13]   This appeal ensued.
    Discussion and Decision
    [14]   Gary raises for our review the sole question of whether the sixty-four-year
    sentence that the trial court imposed upon him was inappropriate. The
    authority granted to this Court by Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana
    Constitution permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is
    implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The 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 offender.” Under this rule, and as
    interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due
    consideration of the trial court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 4 of 7
    inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
    offender. Cardwell v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    , 1222-25 (Ind. 2008); Serino v. State,
    
    798 N.E.2d 852
    , 856-57 (Ind. 2003). The principal role of such review is to
    attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.
    [15]   Gary was convicted of Murder, a Felony. The sentencing range for murder
    runs from forty-five to sixty-five years imprisonment, with an advisory term of
    fifty-five years. I.C. § 35-50-2-3(a). Gary was sentenced to a term of sixty-four
    years, one year below the maximum term of imprisonment, and in his appeal
    requests that we conclude that his sentence was inappropriate and asks that we
    revise his sentence downward to the advisory term of fifty-five years.
    [16]   Looking first to the nature of the offense, our review of the record discloses that
    Gary was present at a social gathering at his brother James’s home. Shortly
    before committing the offense of Murder, Gary attempted to take James’s gun.
    When told to leave, Gary made a phone call, but remained at James’s home.
    While James was inside tending to his infant child, Gary took out his own gun
    and shot Evans in the head. Burnett, a friend of James and Evans, was close
    enough to feel the disruption of air caused by the gunshot although at the
    moment his attention was directed toward an outdoor party across the street
    from the scene. Gary then fled and, later that night, consumed marijuana and
    admitted to having shot Evans.
    [17]   As a result of the shooting, Evans, with whom Gary had no prior conflict or
    quarrel, died; the shooting, then, had no apparent motivation. Moreover, the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 5 of 7
    shooting resulted in Burnett, who already suffered from post-traumatic stress,
    experiencing increased levels of trauma as a result of the shooting. Gary’s use
    of a firearm posed a risk to numerous other individuals present that day, as
    well.
    [18]   We turn now to the nature of Gary’s character. Our review of the record
    discloses that Gary did not finish high school, and experienced disciplinary
    problems while enrolled in school. As a minor, Gary had extensive interactions
    with the juvenile justice system, including two delinquency adjudications for
    Battery, and one delinquency adjudication for Disorderly Conduct. Gary’s
    final contact with the juvenile system resulted in a case being waived into adult
    court jurisdiction, and he was ultimately convicted of Robbery in that case, was
    incarcerated, and failed to successfully complete probation. He subsequently
    committed felony-level offenses of Receiving Stolen Property and Criminal
    Recklessness, and was convicted of misdemeanor-level offenses of Resisting
    Law Enforcement, Illegal Possession of an Alcoholic Beverage, Battery, False
    Informing, and Unlawful Gambling. In numerous of these cases, his probation
    was revoked.
    [19]   During the presentencing investigation, Gary admitted to having had a prior
    affiliation with a gang. He was last employed in 2014. Gary acknowledged
    that he had been diagnosed as schizophrenic in 2012, but had discontinued
    medication. Gary further admitted to daily use of marijuana, beginning at age
    fifteen. He also admitted to use of methamphetamine beginning in 2012, and
    stated that the last day he used methamphetamine was the day of his arrest—
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 6 of 7
    one day after the murder of Evans. Gary was afforded addiction treatment
    while incarcerated in 2012, but apparently did not benefit from that treatment.
    [20]   In Gary’s favor, he voluntarily surrendered to police. Yet that by itself does not
    persuade us that the nature of his offense and his character are such that the
    trial court’s imposition of a sentence near the statutory maximum was
    inappropriate.
    [21]   Affirmed.
    Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1611-CR-2739 | July 26, 2017   Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20A03-1611-CR-2739

Filed Date: 7/26/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021