Jarred Parton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 16 2019, 9:14 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
Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General
Lauren A. Jacobsen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jarred Parton, July 16, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-69
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
03C01-1802-F6-930
03C01-1803-F6-1163
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Jarred Parton appeals his five-year aggregate sentence for level 6 felony
possession of methamphetamine and level 6 felony failure to return to lawful
detention. Parton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
find his guilty plea a mitigating circumstance. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 19, 2018, Columbus Police Department Officer Travis Harbough
arrested Parton, who had absconded from a work release program ten days
prior. In a search of his person incident to his arrest, Officer Harbough found
two bags that contained marijuana and methamphetamine.
[3] The State charged Parton with level 6 felony failure to return to lawful
detention in cause number 03C01-1803-F6-1163, and with level 6 felony
possession of methamphetamine and class A misdemeanor possession of
marijuana in cause number 03C01-1802-F6-930. Parton pled guilty in both
actions. In return for the plea, the State dropped the class A misdemeanor
charge in cause 930 and stipulated that Parton have his sentence under an
unrelated cause number be modified by the court to time served.
[4] The trial court held a sentencing hearing in which Parton offered testimony.
During argument, Parton made no mention of any mitigating circumstances
and did not discuss his guilty plea. The trial court found no mitigators and
seven aggravators: (1) Parton’s criminal history; (2) multiple failures of
supervisory sentences; (3) Parton was on probation when these offenses
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5
occurred; (4) Parton has been offered and failed multiple treatment programs;
(5) Parton had multiple jail rule violations while this case was pending; (6)
Parton continued to use drugs in jail; and (7) Parton wants to stay a member of
the Aryan Brotherhood. The trial court told Parton, “The aggravators far
outweigh any mitigators.” Tr. Vol 2 at 52 (emphasis added). It sentenced Parton
to 912 days on each count, to be served consecutively, all executed. The trial
court dismissed the class A misdemeanor charge under cause number 930, and
also recommended that Parton be sent to a facility that can evaluate him for
mental health and substance abuse issues. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Parton argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider his guilty plea as a
mitigating factor.1 “Generally speaking, sentencing decisions are left to the
sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s decision only
for an abuse of this discretion.” Singh v. State, 40 N.E.3d 981, 987 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied (2016). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn
therefrom.” Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007) (quotation
marks omitted), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
1
Parton also requests that we “reweigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in [this] case at the appellate
level.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. We cannot. Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 493-94 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5
[6] The finding of mitigating circumstances rests within the trial court’s discretion.
Newsome v. State, 797 N.E.2d 293, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied (2004).
A “trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a mitigating
factor that was not raised at sentencing.” Anglemeyer, 868 N.E.2d at 492.
However, “this general proposition has at least one important exception,
namely: pleas of guilty.” Anglemeyer, 875 N.E.2d at 220. Because the trial court
is inherently aware that a guilty plea is a mitigating circumstance, Parton is not
precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Id. “We thus
examine the trial court’s failure to mention this factor under our abuse of
discretion standard of review.” Id.
[7] In clarifying how to treat a guilty plea, our supreme court offered this analysis:
We have held that a defendant who pleads guilty deserves some
mitigating weight be given to the plea in return. But an allegation
that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor
requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is
not only supported by the record but also that the mitigating
evidence is significant. And the significance of a guilty plea as a
mitigating factor varies from case to case. For example, a guilty
plea may not be significantly mitigating when it does not
demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, or
when the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for the
plea.
Id. (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
[8] Anglemeyer is very similar to this case. “[T]he record shows that [Parton’s] plea
agreement was more likely the result of pragmatism than acceptance of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5
responsibility and remorse[,]” because the evidence against Parton was
overwhelming. Id. Also like Anglemeyer, Parton attempted at the sentencing
hearing to “minimize his culpability by relying upon . . . mental impairment,
and a history of emotional and behavioral problems.” Id. See Tr. Vol 2 at 6
(“Every decision I make is based on drug use and how to get drugs and how to
get high.”). In sum, Parton has failed to show that his guilty plea was a
significant mitigating circumstance. Therefore, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5