Aaliyah S. Craft v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2018, 6:23 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Thomas C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Aaliyah S. Craft, October 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1383
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1710-F6-1147
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Aaliyah S. Craft appeals her one-year aggregate sentence for Level 6 felony
maintaining a common nuisance 1 and Class A misdemeanor possession of
marijuana. 2 She argues her sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the
offense and her character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 3, 2017, officers executed a search warrant at Craft’s residence,
where she lived with her boyfriend. In Craft’s bedroom, officers found two
pounds of marijuana, digital scales, baggies, a glass smoking pipe, burnt ashes,
and over $8000. Craft’s boyfriend admitted he sells marijuana from the
residence, and Craft admitted half of the marijuana belonged to her.
[3] On October 10, 2017, the State charged Craft with Level 6 felony maintaining a
common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On
October 22, 2017, while out on bond for these charges, Craft was arrested and
charged with Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On October 30,
2017, Craft entered a plea agreement with the State wherein she pled guilty as
charged and agreed to be placed in the drug court diversion program. Craft was
scheduled to begin the drug court diversion program on October 31, 2017, but
she did not appear.
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(b)(3) (2017).
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(b) (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[4] On November 6, 2017, Craft failed to appear at a Drug Court status hearing,
and the trial court issued a warrant for her arrest. Officers arrested Craft on
April 6, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the trial court sentenced Craft to one year for
Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance and 180 days for Class A
misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The court ordered those served
concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of one year.
Discussion and Decision
[5] We may revise a sentence imposed by the trial court if it is inappropriate in light
of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State,
891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)).
Our review is deferential to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to
determine whether the appellant’s sentence is inappropriate, not whether some
other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876
(Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators
found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record.
Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant bears
the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848
N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). When reviewing a sentence, we “focus on the
forest - the aggregate sentence - rather than the trees - consecutive or
concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual
count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[6] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The
advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a sentencing range of six
months to two and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2016). A person
convicted of a Class A misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of
not more than one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court imposed an
aggregate one-year sentence.
[7] “[T]he defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his
sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.
Here, Craft argues her offenses were not egregious. Considering the quantity
of marijuana found at Craft’s residence, as well as other items to suggest dealing
in marijuana, we cannot say the nature of Craft’s offense was so unremarkable
that the advisory sentence was inappropriate. See Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d
586, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding advisory sentence not inappropriate
based in part that “nothing stands out about the nature of this offense”), trans.
denied.
[8] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
appellant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). The significance of criminal history in assessing a defendant’s
character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in
relation to the current offense. Id. Craft’s criminal history is sparse, but her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 5
other conviction is for an offense committed while on bail for the current
offense. Craft argues she is not a danger to society and a shorter executed
sentence 3 “may scare her straight.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.)
[9] While all these factors weigh favorably on her character, she also squandered
an opportunity to participate in Drug Court, and her scores on the aptitude tests
given to her as part of the Pre-Sentence Investigation indicate she is at a high
risk to re-offend. We cannot say her sentence is inappropriate based on her
character. See Holt v. State, 62 N.E.3d 462, 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (advisory
sentence not inappropriate considering Holt’s “complete lack of respect for the
court and the law”).
Conclusion
[10] Craft’s one-year sentence for Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance
and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana is not inappropriate based
on the nature of her offense or her character. Accordingly, we affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
3
We note the trial court ordered only 183 days of Craft’s sentence executed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 5