Samantha Cooper v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Jun 30 2016, 8:54 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
precedent or cited before any court except for the and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Robert Summerfield Gregory F. Zoeller
CGS Law Group Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Samantha Cooper, June 30, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1512-CR-2052
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Hon. Thomas Newman, Jr.,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No. 48C03-1402-
FB-334
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] On January 26, 2015, Appellant-Defendant Samantha Cooper pled guilty,
pursuant to a written plea agreement (“the Agreement”), to two counts of Class
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2052 | June 30, 2016 Page 1 of 4
B felony aiding, inducing, or causing robbery. The Agreement provided that
the executed portion of Cooper’s sentence was not to exceed six years. The
Agreement also provided that Cooper waived the right to appeal any sentence
that was within the terms of the Agreement. On February 23, 2015, the trial
court sentenced Cooper to an aggregate sentence of ten years, with six executed
and four suspended to probation. Cooper contends that the trial court abused
its discretion in sentencing her. Because we conclude that Cooper has waived
the right to challenge her sentence, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 19, 2014, Cooper was in the home of Leroy Smith, arranging with
her boyfriend, via text message, a robbery of Smith. Smith’s son and a friend of
Smith’s were also present. After Cooper transmitted the required information
to her boyfriend, he, armed with a long gun, and another man broke into
Smith’s home. The robbery attempt apparently failed when the intended
victims disarmed the boyfriend, threw him down a flight of stairs, and “beat
him up in the process.” Tr. p. 8.
[3] On February 26, 2014, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”)
charged Cooper with two counts of Class B felony aiding, inducing, or causing
robbery. On January 26, 2015, Cooper and the State entered into the
Agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty as charged, Cooper agreed to “A
CAP OF SIX (6) YEARS ON ANY PART OF THE SENTENCE ORDERED
EXECUTED BY THE COURT.” Appellant’s App. p. 32. The Agreement
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2052 | June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 4
also provided that “The Defendant hereby waives the right to appeal any
sentence imposed by the Court, including the right to seek review of the
sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), so long as the Court sentences the
Defendant within the terms of this plea agreement.” Appellant’s App. p. 33.
Also on January 26, 2015, Cooper pled guilty as charged. On February 23,
2015, the trial court sentenced Cooper to an aggregate sentence of ten years,
with six executed and four suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Cooper contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her by
failing to issue a sentencing statement containing its reasons for imposing
sentence or stating those reasons on the record. As the State notes, however,
the Agreement provides, inter alia, that Cooper has waived the right to challenge
her sentence on appeal so long as it is within the Agreement’s terms. We have
held that “a defendant may in a plea agreement waive his right to a direct
appeal of the sentence.” Perez v. State, 866 N.E.2d 817, 820 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007), trans. denied. The Agreement provided that the trial court could impose
an executed sentence of no more than six years, which is precisely what the trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2052 | June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 4
court did.1 Because Cooper’s sentence is within the terms of the Agreement,
she has waived the right to challenge it on direct appeal. See id. (where plea
agreement contained sentencing range of thirty to fifty years and waiver of
sentence challenge, concluding that defendant could not challenge forty-seven-
year sentence on appeal because it was within terms of plea agreement).
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
1
The essence of Cooper’s argument seems to be that there is some confusion regarding the sentence actually
imposed, pointing specifically to the following passage in the trial court’s sentencing order:
[T]he Court now sentences the defendant as follows: On Count[] I, to the custody of the
Indiana Department of Correction for a period of 10 years. On Count[] II, to the custody
of the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of 10 years concurrent with 6 years
executed and 4 years suspended.
Appellant’s App. p. 47. Cooper argues that this passage could lead one to believe that the trial court imposed
an executed sentence of sixteen years, not six, which would take her sentence outside the parameters of the
Agreement. The passage, however, includes the word “concurrent[,]” which precludes any reasonable
confusion about whether the sentences are, in fact, to be served consecutively.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2052 | June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 4