Richard D. Croslin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 23 2016, 6:51 am
CLERK
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as and Tax Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Gregory F. Zoeller
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Richard D. Croslin, March 23, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
36A01-1511-CR-1984
v. Appeal from the Jackson Circuit
Court.
The Honorable William E. Vance,
State of Indiana, Senior Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause Nos. 36C01-1403-FC-16,
36C01-1403-FA-7
Friedlander, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 1 of 7
[1] Richard D. Croslin appeals the aggregate twenty-six-year sentence the trial
court imposed on his convictions of burglary as a Class B felony and burglary as
1
a Class C felony. We affirm.
[2] On March 8, 2014, Croslin sought emergency medical treatment at Schneck
Medical Center in Jackson County. Hospital staff put him in a room. Croslin,
who was accompanied by a companion, left his room and went to the nurses’
break room. While his companion served as a lookout, Croslin stole personal
property including a cell phone, an iPod, and clothing from the nurses’ lockers.
He gave the property to his companion, who took the items out to her car.
[3] After reviewing security camera footage, police officers obtained a search
warrant for Croslin’s apartment and found some of the stolen items there, plus
marijuana and paraphernalia.
[4] In Cause Number 36C01-1403-FC-16 (“FC-16”), the State charged Croslin with
one count of theft, a Class C felony; four counts of theft, all Class D felonies;
four counts of receiving stolen property, all Class D felonies; and possession of
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (West, Westlaw 1999). The version of the governing statute, i.e., Ind. Code § 35-43-
2-1, in effect at the time this offense was committed classified it as a Class A, B, or C felony. This statute has
since been revised and in its current form reclassifies the offense as a Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 felony. See Ind. Code
§ 35-43-2-1 (West, Westlaw current with all 2015 First Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly
legislation effective through June 28, 2015). The new classification, however, applies only to offenses
committed on or after July 1, 2014. See id. Because these offenses were committed prior to that date, they
retain the former classification.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 2 of 7
marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, both Class A misdemeanors. The
State further alleged that Croslin was an habitual offender.
[5] Meanwhile, on March 9, 2014, Bethany Hartzler returned to her apartment and
discovered a man looking through her kitchen cabinets. She grabbed the man’s
arm and asked what he was doing. The man replied, “Stealing your money
bitch,” and punched Hartzler in the mouth. Appellant’s App. p. 121. The man
fled, and Hartzler discovered that he had taken $2,300, a flashlight/Taser, and a
multi-tool device.
[6] A few days later, Hartzler saw Croslin’s picture in the newspaper and
recognized him as the man who struck her. She reported this information to
the police. Officers who had searched Croslin’s apartment in connection with
his thefts from the hospital recalled seeing a flashlight and multi-tool in his
apartment. In addition, an officer showed Hartzler a recording taken during the
search of Croslin’s apartment, and she identified the flashlight/Taser on the
recording. Officers obtained another search warrant and recovered the
flashlight/Taser and multi-tool from Croslin’s apartment.
[7] In Cause Number 36C01-1403-FA-7 (“FA-7”), the State charged Croslin with
burglary resulting in bodily injury, a Class A felony; theft, a Class D felony; and
battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.
[8] Croslin and the State executed plea agreements in FC-16 and FA-7. In FC-16,
Croslin agreed to plead guilty to Class C felony burglary. In FA-7, Croslin
agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony burglary as a lesser-included offense of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 3 of 7
Class A felony burglary. In both plea agreements, the State agreed to dismiss
all other charges. The parties agreed that Croslin would serve his sentences in
FC-16 and FA-7 consecutively, but the State would not recommend an
aggregate sentence longer than twenty-five years.
[9] The trial court accepted the plea agreements and held a combined sentencing
hearing. The court sentenced Croslin to seven years in FA-16 and nineteen
years in FA-7, to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of twenty-
six years.
[10] Croslin now appeals, claiming his sentence is too long. He does not specify the
amount of the reduction he is seeking.
[11] Article VII, section six of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court of
Appeals to review and revise sentences. That authority is carried out through
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows an appellate court to revise a
sentence that is otherwise 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.”
[12] The principal role of appellate review under Rule 7(B) is to attempt to leaven
the outliers, not to achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Garner v.
State, 7 N.E.3d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Thus, the key question is not
whether another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence
imposed in the instant case is inappropriate. Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154(Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 4 of 7
[13] It is the defendant’s burden to persuade us that the sentence is inappropriate.
Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate depends upon the culpability of the
defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and many
other circumstances that are present in a given case. Harman v. State, 4 N.E.3d
209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Thus, when assessing the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender, we may look to any factors appearing
in the record. Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
[14] At the time Croslin committed his crimes, the advisory sentence for a Class B
felony was ten years, with a maximum sentence of twenty years and a
minimum sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (West, Westlaw 2005).
The advisory sentence for a Class C felony was four years, with a maximum
sentence of eight years and a minimum sentence of two years. Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-6 (West, Westlaw 2005). The trial court sentenced Croslin to nineteen
years for his Class B felony burglary and seven years for his Class C felony
burglary, to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of twenty-six
years, two years short of the maximum possible sentence.
[15] Turning to the nature of the offenses, in FC-16 Croslin stole from medical
professionals from whom he had sought emergency treatment. He took
advantage of people who were treating him. In addition, he worked with an
accomplice who served as a lookout and took the stolen goods to her car, which
indicates that Croslin planned the crime to some extent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 5 of 7
[16] In FA-7, Croslin entered an apartment and punched Hartzler in the face when
she confronted him. His violent act appears to have been completely
gratuitous. According to a police report, Hartzler was four months pregnant at
the time. In addition, Croslin stole money that Hartzler needed to buy a car.
[17] Turning to the character of the offender, Croslin has a lengthy criminal record.
He was forty-nine years old at sentencing, and his criminal history stretches
back to 1984. Croslin has fifteen prior felony convictions, including burglary,
theft (two convictions), battery, robbery (five convictions), operating a motor
vehicle while intoxicated, and forgery. Two of his robbery convictions involved
hitting women in the course of stealing their purses, so it appears he has a
pattern of committing violent crimes against women while stealing their
property. Croslin has never gone more than two or three years without
committing crimes. He was on probation when he committed the offenses at
issue. Clearly, prior sentences have not deterred Croslin from choosing to
commit crimes. To the contrary, he continues to commit the same types of
crimes over and over again.
[18] Croslin claims that his crimes are the result of lifelong addictions to drugs and
alcohol for which he needs treatment. The record does not show that he has
ever sought such treatment except when he is facing criminal charges. See
Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (history of substance abuse
does not merit sentence reduction where appellant did not request treatment
until after his arrest), trans. denied. Croslin further argues that he assisted the
police, but he only admitted that he had taken property from the hospital after
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 6 of 7
the stolen goods were found in his apartment. Similarly, Croslin claims that he
deserves credit for pleading guilty, but the evidence against him was very strong
and he received substantial benefits by pleading guilty because the State
dismissed several other charges, including an habitual offender enhancement.
He says he expressed remorse during the sentencing hearing, but the trial court
was in the best position to assess his credibility. See Sandleben v. State, 29
N.E.3d 126, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (unless there is evidence of “some
impermissible consideration” by the trial court, we accept the court’s
assessment of remorse), trans. denied.
[19] Based upon the circumstances of the crimes and Croslin’s substantial criminal
history, he has failed to demonstrate that his enhanced sentence is
inappropriate. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
[20] Judgment affirmed.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1511-CR-1984 | March 23, 2016 Page 7 of 7