Tara L. Wakefield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Aug 04 2016, 8:05 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
regarded as 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
Justin R. Wall Gregory F. Zoeller
Wall Legal Services Attorney General of Indiana
Huntington, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tara L. Wakefield, August 4, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
85A02-1602-CR-311
v. Appeal from the
Wabash Superior Court
State of Indiana The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Christopher M. Goff, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
85D01-1512-F6-1134
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 1 of 6
[1] Tara L. Wakefield (“Wakefield”) pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a
syringe as a Level 6 felony,1 and the trial court sentenced her to one and one-
half years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. On appeal,
Wakefield contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On December 11, 2015, Wabash Police Department Officers went to an
apartment on North Comstock, in Wabash, Indiana, to investigate a report that
an individual had threatened another with a knife. The tenant gave officers
permission to search his apartment, and during that search, Officer Jason
Mooney discovered a woman, later identified as Wakefield, asleep in bed.
Wakefield initially identified herself as Jessica Sparks. However, during further
questioning, she admitted that she lied about her name because warrants for her
arrest had been issued in Cass and Huntington Counties.
[4] Wakefield was arrested on the warrants and transported to the Wabash County
Jail with her purse and coat. During booking, officers searched Wakefield’s
purse and found a hypodermic needle at the bottom. An eyeglass case
containing another hypodermic needle and a metal spoon with burn marks on
1
See Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 6
the bottom of it was also found in Wakefield’s purse. Wakefield was charged
with unlawful possession of a syringe and possession of paraphernalia.
[5] At the initial hearing, Wakefield pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of
syringe, a Level 6 felony without the assistance of counsel and without the
benefit of a negotiated plea. The possession of paraphernalia count was later
dismissed. The trial court accepted Wakefield’s plea and took sentencing under
advisement to order a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.
[6] At sentencing, the trial court found in mitigation the fact that Wakefield entered
her plea of guilty without the benefit of counsel and without a negotiated plea
agreement. Tr. at 22. The trial court found the following aggravating factors:
the risk that Wakefield will commit another crime; the nature and
circumstances of the crimes committed; and her prior criminal record, her
character, and condition. Id. Wakefield’s prior criminal history included
approximately five misdemeanor convictions, one felony conviction, and one
probation violation. The trial court also considered that Wakefield had
“significant problems in the past” with drug and alcohol issues. Id. The trial
court determined that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors
and sentenced Wakefield to one and one-half years executed. Wakefield now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers us to independently review and revise
sentences authorized by statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 6
court’s decision is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013), trans. denied. “Even if the trial court followed the appropriate procedure
in arriving at its sentence, this court still maintains a constitutional power to
revise a sentence it finds inappropriate.” Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212, 1218
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
requires the appellant to demonstrate that her sentence is inappropriate in light
of both the nature of his offenses and her character. See Ind. Appellate Rule
7(B); Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to
the trial court “should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence
portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by
restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as
substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson
v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The defendant bears the burden to
“persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this
inappropriateness standard of review.” Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
[8] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that
the advisory sentence is the starting point which the Legislature has selected as
an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d
1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). Here, Wakefield was convicted of Level 6 felony
unlawful possession of a syringe. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 4 of 6
between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of
one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7.
[9] Wakefield argues that her one and one-half year sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and her character. As to the nature of the
offense, Wakefield was found in possession of two hypodermic needles.
Although the nature of the offense is not particularly egregious, Wakefield had
warrants for her arrest in two counties and was a fugitive at the time of her
arrest, and she was also on probation in Huntington County and facing charges
in Cass County. She gave the police a fake name in an attempt to conceal her
identity because she knew about the warrants.
[10] As to Wakefield’s character, since 2002 she has accumulated five misdemeanor
convictions and one felony conviction and has pending misdemeanor and
felony charges in multiple counties. Wakefield’s prior convictions are for
battery resulting in bodily injury, conversion, check deception, and robbery
while armed with a deadly weapon or resulting in bodily injury to another
person. Wakefield has also been found to be in violation of her supervised
probation. At the time of the present conviction, Wakefield had pending
charges for corrupt business influence and six counts of theft, all of which are
felonies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[11] Wakefield has not met her burden of proving that the one and one-half year
sentence is inappropriate in light of nature of the offense and her character. 2
[12] Affirmed.
[13] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
2
Wakefield also contends that she “would have greatly benefit[t]ed from a lesser sentence in that she would
have been afforded a greater opportunity to participate in drug treatment programs such as the Wabash Drug
Court Program or through services offered by Wabash Community Corrections.” Appellant’s Br. at 15.
Concluding that Wakefield’s sentence is not inappropriate, we do not address Wakefield’s contentions
regarding drug treatment programs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 6 of 6