Travis K. Adamonis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 12 2019, 8:35 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Frew 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
Travis K. Adamonis, June 12, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-3098
v. Appeal from the
Allen Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Frances C. Gull, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D05-1712-F5-3641
1
We note that many documents misstate the trial court cause number as 02D04-1712-F5-364. However, we
use 02D05-1712-F5-364 as it is the number found in Odyssey and the CCS.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] Travis K. Adamonis (“Adamonis”) pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine,2 a
Level 5 felony, operating a vehicle while intoxicated,3 a Class A misdemeanor,
and leaving the scene of an accident,4 a Class B misdemeanor. After being
terminated from Drug Court, Adamonis was subsequently sentenced to
concurrent terms of three years for Count I, one year for Count II, and 180 days
for Count III, for an aggregate sentence of three years executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction (“DOC”). Adamonis now appeals his sentence
arguing that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the
character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On December 14, 2017, Adamonis ran a red light and was struck by another
vehicle. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 14. Adamonis was under the influence of
alcohol, and rather than stopping, he continued driving until his truck broke
down. Id. at 37. When Detective Weaver with the Fort Wayne Police
2
See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.
3
See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b).
4
See Ind. Code § 9-26-1-1.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 2 of 7
Department responded, Adamonis was standing at the driver’s side of the truck.
Id. Adamonis told Detective Weaver that he had been involved in the accident.
Id. While being handcuffed, Adamonis told Detective Weaver that his
identification was in his left front pocket. Id. As Detective Weaver removed
the identification, he found a clear plastic bag with a white, powdery substance
inside. Id. Adamonis stated, “I have some coke on me.” Id. Detective Weaver
found another bag with the same powdery substance. Id. Both bags contained
cocaine: the first bag weighed 1.2 grams and the other 7.5 grams. Id.
Adamonis was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of cocaine,
operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident. Id.
[4] Adamonis pleaded guilty to all counts on February 26, 2018 and was ordered to
participate in Drug Court. Id. at 23. While participating in Drug Court,
Adamonis had four positive urine screens and tested positive for marijuana,
alcohol and cocaine. Id. at 33. On October 22, 2018, the Drug Court case
manager filed a petition to terminate Adamonis’s participation in the program.
Id. at 24. The petition alleged that Adamonis had violated the conditions of
Drug Court by testing positive for alcohol on October 11, 2018 and “[b]eing
unsuccessfully discharged from Freedom House [a halfway house] on October
17, 2018.” Id. at 24-25. His participation in Drug Court was ultimately
revoked. Tr. Vol. 2 at 16.
[5] At the November 27, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court noted as
mitigating factors that Adamonis entered a guilty plea and expressed remorse
and responsibility for his actions. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 42. The trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 3 of 7
also found Adamonis’s extensive criminal history to be an aggravating
circumstance. Specifically, the trial court highlighted: “three adjudications as a
juvenile with . . . , administrative probation, community service, drug
treatment, operational supervision; and then, as an adult, you have five
misdemeanor convictions with the benefit of short jail sentences, longer jail
sentences, active adult probation, house arrest, the Alcohol Countermeasures
Program, suspended commitments . . ., and then, ultimately, treatment through
the Drug Court Program.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 19. Adamonis was also rated as a
“High” risk to reoffend according to the Indiana Risk Assessment System.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 34. The trial court sentenced Adamonis to
confinement in DOC for three years for Count I, one year for Count II, and 180
days for Count III. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20-21. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Id. at 21. In addition to the time at DOC, Adamonis was ordered to pay
$6,150.00 in restitution. Id. Adamonis now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this court “may revise a sentence
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the
[c]ourt finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.” Our Supreme Court has explained
that the principal role of the appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the
outliers, “not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We independently examine the
nature of Adamonis’s offenses and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B) with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 4 of 7
substantial deference to the trial court’s sentence. Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d
344, 355 (Ind. 2015). “In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether
the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more
appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Perry v.
State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d
306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). Whether the sentence is
inappropriate ultimately depends upon “the culpability of the defendant, the
severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors
that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Adamonis
bears the burden of persuading this court that his sentence is inappropriate. Id.
[7] In arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, Adamonis focuses only on the
character prong of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence review. Appellant’s Br.
at 12. When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory
sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate
sentence for the crime committed. Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 973 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015); Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Here, Adamonis was convicted of a Level 5 felony, a Class A misdemeanor,
and a Class B misdemeanor. The advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony is three
years, with a range between one and six years. Ind Code § 35-50-2-6. For a
Class A misdemeanor and a Class B misdemeanor, the limit for imprisonment
is one year, Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2, and 180 days respectively, Ind. Code. § 35-
50-3-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 5 of 7
[8] Notwithstanding Adamonis’s failure to specifically address the nature of the
offense, we note that the nature of the offense is found in the details and
circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s
participation. Perry, 78 N.E. at 13. In the present case, Adamonis was driving
while intoxicated, ran a red light, and was struck by another vehicle. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 36-37. Instead of remaining at the scene, Adamonis fled the area
until he could no longer drive due to his truck breaking down. Id. at 36. All the
while, he had two bags of cocaine in his possession. The offense is made worse
due to Adamonis’s previous driving while intoxicated convictions and
convictions concerning illegal intoxicants. Adamonis’s aggregate sentence of
three years is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.
[9] Adamonis contends that his character demonstrates “his willingness and desire
to cooperate with treatment.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. He also states that he
apologized for his decisions, and this demonstrates his character 5. The
character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life and
conduct. Id. One relevant fact in considering the character of the offender is
the defendant’s criminal history. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). At the sentencing hearing, Adamonis took full responsibility for
his actions and admitted that the court gave him “a ton of chances.” Tr. Vol. 2
5
Adamonis contends that the decision by the trial court to order a sentence longer than the one
recommended by the State was unjustified in light of what he considers his positive character. We note that
“unjustified” is not a valid criterion under a Rule 7(B) analysis. Rather, the test is whether a sentence is
“inappropriate.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 6 of 7
at 18. However, Adamonis was originally a participant in Drug Court, and his
participation was terminated when he violated the Drug Court terms and
conditions multiple times. Appellant’s App. Vol. II. at 24-25. Additionally,
Adamonis broke the law when he was a juvenile and continued breaking the
law as an adult. Adamonis’s adult criminal record demonstrates a lack of
rehabilitation. In adulthood, Adamonis has experienced the advantages of
house arrest, probation, and programs focusing on alcohol and drugs. Tr. Vol. 2
at 19. Despite participation in these forms of rehabilitation, Adamonis
continued to reoffend and still remained a “High” risk to reoffend at the time of
sentencing. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 34. Adamonis’s sentence is not
inappropriate based on the nature of the offense and his character.
[10] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3098 | June 12, 2019 Page 7 of 7