Terence L. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                       FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                              Aug 09 2019, 9:03 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                 Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                            and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Thomas C. Allen                                          Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Fort Wayne, Indiana                                      Attorney General of Indiana
    Megan M. Smith
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Terence L. Riley,                                        August 9, 2019
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-CR-659
    v.                                               Appeal from the Allen Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                       Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    02D05-1712-F5-344
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-659 | August 9, 2019                   Page 1 of 4
    [1]   Terence Riley appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after Riley was
    convicted of Level 5 felony domestic battery, arguing that the sentence is
    inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding
    that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
    [2]   In July 2016, Riley battered his wife, Barbara Harris, punching her in the face
    multiple times. He was convicted of domestic battery in Steuben County for
    that incident.
    [3]   In October 2017, Riley was still on probation for the domestic battery
    conviction. On October 9, 2017, Riley initiated an argument with Harris. He
    punched her repeatedly in the face. Scared, Harris ran into a bathroom and
    locked the door. He followed her and kicked down the door. With blood
    running down her face and a swollen eye, Harris begged Riley to let her go to
    the hospital. After she promised that she would not call the police, he allowed
    her to leave and she drove herself to the hospital. She received five stitches in
    her forehead and was treated for bruising on her cheek and a sprain of her bicep
    tendon. The laceration on her forehead could still be seen at the time of Riley’s
    trial and is likely permanent.
    [4]   On December 1, 2017, the State charged Riley with Level 5 felony domestic
    battery, Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, and
    Level 6 felony domestic battery with a prior unrelated conviction. 1 While the
    1
    The State later dismissed the charge for domestic battery with a prior unrelated conviction.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-659 | August 9, 2019                      Page 2 of 4
    charges were pending, Riley encouraged Harris not to cooperate with the
    prosecutor’s office, telling her that if she refused to cooperate, the case would
    get dismissed. Riley’s jury trial took place on February 5-6, 2019. The jury
    found Riley guilty as charged and the trial court vacated the Level 6 felony
    conviction on double jeopardy grounds. On March 13, 2019, the trial court
    sentenced Riley to six years in the Department of Correction. Riley now
    appeals.
    [5]   Riley’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is inappropriate in light of
    the nature of the offenses and his character pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule
    7(B). 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). For a Level 5 felony conviction, Riley faced a possible
    sentence of one to six years imprisonment, with an advisory term of three years.
    
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6
    (b). The trial court imposed a maximum six-year term.
    [6]   With respect to the nature of the offense, Riley battered his wife, striking her
    with such force that she needed five stitches in her forehead and had injuries to
    her cheek and arm. The scarring as a result of the laceration in her forehead
    may be permanent. He refused to let her go to the hospital until she promised
    not to call the police.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-659 | August 9, 2019   Page 3 of 4
    [7]   With respect to Riley’s character, we note that he has a significant criminal
    history. He has been convicted three times of battery, twice of dealing in
    cocaine or a narcotic drug, once of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
    base “crack,” and once of operating while intoxicated. He has had many
    chances to reflect on his behavior and change his ways, including shorter
    sentences, longer sentences, time with the Center for Nonviolence, residential
    placement, and the Alcohol Countermeasure Program. He has had suspended
    sentences revoked twice, placements modified twice, and a federal sentence
    modified twice. He was on probation for the same offense—battering his
    wife—when he committed the very same act in this case. As soon as he
    battered her, his first thought was of himself, and he began trying to convince
    her not to call the police. After the State filed charges, he continued to
    manipulate the situation by encouraging her not to cooperate with the
    prosecutor’s office. He has never shown remorse or accepted any responsibility
    for his actions. Given this record, we find that the sentence imposed by the trial
    court was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character.
    [8]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-659 | August 9, 2019   Page 4 of 4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19A-CR-659

Filed Date: 8/9/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/9/2019