Zacharia Lockhart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                  FILED
    court except for the purpose of establishing                          Aug 08 2017, 8:06 am
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    CLERK
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                      Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Leanna Weissmann                                         Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Lawrenceburg, Indiana                                    Attorney General of Indiana
    Katherine Modesitt Cooper
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Zacharia Lockhart,                                       August 8, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    16A01-1702-CR-430
    v.                                               Appeal from the Decatur Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable Matthew Bailey,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    16D01-1606-F6-509
    Riley, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017           Page 1 of 5
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    [1]   Appellant-Defendant, Zacharia Lockhart (Lockhart), appeals his sentence for
    theft, a Level 6 felony, 
    Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2
    (a)(1)(C)(i).
    [2]   We affirm.
    ISSUE
    [3]   Lockhart presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether
    his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
    character.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    [4]   On the evening of August 26, 2015, Noel Vaughn (Noel) returned home from
    work. When he entered his bedroom, he noticed the dresser drawers had been
    pushed in too far. Upon a closer examination, he discovered that money had
    been taken—an older five dollar bill and some older two dollar bills, as well as
    some half dollar coins. A jewelry box sat on top of the dresser. When he
    opened up the box, Noel noticed that three necklaces, his old wedding ring, and
    a tiger’s eye ring were missing. The tiger’s eye ring was very sentimental to
    Noel as it had belonged to his father.
    [5]   Noel contacted his son, Nick Vaughn (Nick), who resided at Noel’s residence.
    Nick informed him that Lockhart had been in the house that day but had left
    sometime after Nick had fallen asleep. Lockhart was a frequent visitor to the
    residence and had been in the house many times in the weeks before August 26,
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017   Page 2 of 5
    2015. After discussing the situation, Noel and Nick determined that Lockhart
    had more than likely taken the items to a local pawn shop. When Noel visited
    the pawn shop and described the items, the store employee informed him that
    the jewelry had been sent to be melted down. The store receipt reflected that
    Lockhart had pawned three necklaces and one ring on August 18, 2015, in
    exchange for $241.90. After being contacted by Nick, Lockhart’s sister
    eventually returned a five dollar bill, a two dollar bill, and Noel’s old wedding
    ring.
    [6]   On June 21, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Lockhart with theft,
    as a Level 6 felony. On November 30, 2016, Lockhart was tried in abstentia. At
    the close of the evidence, the jury found him guilty as charged. On January 30,
    2017, the trial court sentenced Lockhart to 900 days executed, with 180 days
    suspended to probation.
    [7]   Lockhart now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    [8]   Lockhart contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a
    sentence which is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
    character. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we 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, the question is not whether
    another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017   Page 3 of 5
    inappropriate. King v. State, 
    894 N.E.2d 265
    , 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The
    principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers;” it is “not to achieve
    a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    ,
    1225 (Ind. 2008). The appropriateness of the sentence turns on this court’s
    “sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage
    done to others, and a myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.”
    
    Id. at 1224
    . The defendant carries the burden of persuading this court that his
    sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    To successfully carry his burden, “[t]he defendant must show that his sentence
    is inappropriate in light of both his character and the nature of the offense.”
    Williams v. State, 
    891 N.E.2d 621
    , 633 (Ind. 2006).
    [9]    When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
    point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at
    494. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and three
    years, with the advisory sentence being one and one half years. See I.C. § 35-50-
    2-7. Here, the trial court sentenced Lockhart to a sentence of 900 days
    executed, with 180 days suspended. With respect to the nature of these
    offenses, we reiterate that Lockhart stole money and jewelry, some of which
    had sentimental value, of the father of a friend, while being a guest in the
    father’s residence.
    [10]   Turning to Lockhart’s character, we note that, at age 25, Lockhart has a
    criminal history which includes similar previous offenses. In 2013, Lockhart
    was convicted of criminal mischief. In 2014, he pled guilty to misdemeanor
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017   Page 4 of 5
    conversion and, the following year, he pled guilty to two Counts of level 6
    felony theft. Lockhart received probation for both the misdemeanor and felony
    charges, and he was on probation for the Level 6 felony theft when he
    committed the instant offense. In addition, Lockhart had three pending cases in
    two different counties. He has been arrested for Class A misdemeanor resisting
    law enforcement and legend drug injection devices. Lockhart’s failure to
    appear for trial demonstrates an obvious disrespect for the court and the legal
    system. While we agree with Lockhart that some “pilfered possessions” were
    returned, we also note that the evidence reflects that these items were returned
    by Lockhart’s sister, not by him. (Appellant’s Br. p. 9). Although Lockhart
    claims that he “didn’t cause serious harm to property,” we agree with the trial
    court’s sentiment that we “don’t know if he harmed the property or not. He
    stole the property.” (Transcript p. 120). In light of the evidence before us, we
    conclude that Lockhart failed to persuade us that the nature of the crime and his
    character provide a reason to revise his sentence.
    CONCLUSION
    [11]   Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced
    Lockhart.
    [12]   Affirmed.
    [13]   Robb, J. and Pyle, J. concur
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16A01-1702-CR-430

Filed Date: 8/8/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/8/2017