Jeremy Lasalle Roy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 20 2018, 6:39 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
Kristin A. Mulholland Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Lasalle Roy, December 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1944
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G01-1712-F4-42
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In June of 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jeremy Lasalle Roy pled guilty
to Level 4 felony burglary in this case and admitted to violating the terms of
probation imposed in another case. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss all
remaining counts in this case. The trial court sentenced Roy to ten years of
incarceration. Roy contends that his sentence is inappropriate in the light of the
nature of his offenses and his character. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 13, 2017, Kenyana Morson was home alone when she heard a
knock at the front door and noticed an unfamiliar car parked in the driveway.
Morson called her fiancé to ask if he was familiar with the car, he told her that
he was not and to call the police. As Morson called the police, Roy kicked the
back door in and entered the house. Morson hid in a closet as she remained on
the line with emergency dispatch and could hear Roy moving throughout the
house. When police arrived at the home, Morson ran outside and informed
them that the burglar was still inside. As Roy attempted to exit the house, he
was arrested by police.
[3] On December 14, 2017, the State charged Roy with Level 4 felony burglary and
Level 6 felony residential entry under cause number 45G01-1712-F4-42 (“Cause
No. F4-42”) and subsequently amended the information, alleging him to be a
habitual offender. On June 18, 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, Roy pled
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 5
guilty to Level 4 felony burglary and an agreed sentencing cap of nine years
with sentencing to be at the discretion of the court. Additionally, Roy admitted
to violating the terms of probation imposed in cause number 45G01-1211-FB-
107 (“Cause No. FB-107”) and agreed to a sentence of three years to be served
consecutive to his sentence in Cause No. F4-42. In exchange, the State agreed
to dismiss all remaining counts in Cause No. F4-42. On July 5, 2018, the trial
court sentenced Roy to seven years of incarceration in Cause No. F4-42 and
three years of incarceration in Cause No. FB-107, for an aggregate sentence of
ten years.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Roy contends that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a
sentence 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “Sentencing is principally
a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive
considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)
(internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the burden of proving that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his
character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Roy pled
guilty to a Level 4 felony burglary in Cause No. F4-42 and admitted to violating
the terms of probation in Cause No. FB-107 (which involved a burglary
conviction) and received an aggregate sentence of ten years of incarceration, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 5
sentence that is less than the maximum possible sentence for a single Level 4
felony burglary conviction. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5.
[5] The nature of Roy’s offenses does not support a reduction in his sentence. Roy
kicked in the door causing property damage to the home, all while Morson was
present in the home. Morson had to hide in the closet as she spoke to
emergency dispatch until police arrived to provide protection. We find it
troubling that Roy committed the burglary by causing significant property
damage and while the victim was inside the home.
[6] Roy’s character also does not support a reduction in his sentence. The twenty-
eight-year-old Roy has a history with the juvenile and criminal justice systems
that dates back to an arrest at age twelve. As a juvenile, Roy was adjudicated
delinquent for what would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily
injury, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and two counts of
Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult. As an adult,
Roy has convictions for Class B felony burglary, Class C felony burglary, two
counts of Class D felony theft, and nine misdemeanors. Roy has also previously
violated the terms of probation. At the time of sentencing in this case, there was
an active warrant for Roy’s arrest issued out of Marion County. Despite his
many contacts with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, Roy has been
unwilling to conform his actions to societal norms.
[7] Roy claims that he is a “family man” and that he accepted responsibility for his
actions by pleading guilty. However, neither claim of good character is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 5
supported by the record. Roy lives in Gary while his child resides with the
child’s mother in Indianapolis, and Roy has not been court-ordered to pay any
child support. Moreover, Roy, who was arrested at the scene as he attempted to
leave the residence, made a pragmatic decision by pleading guilty because, in
exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the Level 6 felony residential entry charge
and the habitual offender allegation. See Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 212
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting that a guilty plea is not necessarily a mitigating
factor where the defendant receives a substantial benefit from it or where the
evidence is so strong the plea is merely a pragmatic decision), trans. denied. Roy
has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate in the light of both the
nature of his offense and his character.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 5