Shane P. Cooper v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Aug 31 2016, 9:52 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
Derick W. Steele Gregory F. Zoeller
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shane P. Cooper, August 31, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
34A05-1511-CR-1992
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge
Cause No. 34C01-1501-MR-3
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 34A05-1511-CR-1992 | August 31, 2016 Page 1 of 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Shane Cooper (Cooper), appeals his sentence after
pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a Level 2 felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-
1-3.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Cooper raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether Cooper’s
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On January 15, 2015, Cooper woke up thinking about his former girlfriend,
Lynne Dang (Dang), who had broken up with him the previous day. Cooper
saw a photograph and a message that Dang had posted on Instagram indicating
that Donnie Reynolds (Reynolds) was her new boyfriend. Cooper knew
Reynolds because they had attended the same school and Reynolds was
Cooper’s marijuana supplier.
[5] Cooper believed that Dang was at Reynolds’ apartment. As such, Cooper’s
intention was to go to Reynolds’ apartment and talk to Dang, while at the same
time, fight with Reynolds. Typically, Cooper always had a .22 caliber handgun
with him since he bought “a lot of weed and he never really knows who he’s
buying it from.” (Appellant’s App. p. 8). On that morning, Cooper’s instincts
told him to carry a bigger gun on the belief that Reynolds had several guns at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 34A05-1511-CR-1992 | August 31, 2016 Page 2 of 5
his apartment. As such, Cooper took his father’s .357 Magnum with him.
Cooper arrived at Reynolds’ apartment around 7:30 a.m. and banged on the
door. Reynolds opened the door, stepped outside, and closed the door behind
him. The two began quarrelling, and when Reynolds turned to go back into his
apartment, Cooper grabbed Reynolds’ arm to keep Reynolds from leaving. A
fight ensued. According to Cooper, during the fight, his gun fell and both men
reached for the gun. Cooper successfully grabbed the gun and pulled the
trigger, shooting Reynolds. Cooper fled the scene, and left Reynolds bleeding
on the floor.
[6] On January 16, 2015, the State filed an Information, charging Cooper with
Count I, murder. On September 23, 2015, the State added Count II, voluntary
manslaughter, a Level 2 felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on October 21,
2015, Cooper pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in open court, and the
State dismissed the murder charge. On the same day, the trial court held
Cooper’s sentencing hearing. At the close of the evidence, the trial court
sentenced Cooper to an executed sentence of twenty years in the Department of
Correction (DOC).
[7] Cooper now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Cooper contends that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides
that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 34A05-1511-CR-1992 | August 31, 2016 Page 3 of 5
of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light
of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The burden is on
the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
“Ultimately the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be served are
the issues that matter.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).
Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our
sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage
done to others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a
given case. Id.
[9] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016,
1019 (Ind. 2012). Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-2-4.5, “[a] person
who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between
ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and
one-half (17 ½) years.” The trial court sentenced Cooper to an executed
sentence of twenty years.
[10] As to the nature of the offense, we note that Cooper was incensed by the fact
that Reynolds was Dang’s new boyfriend. Cooper’s intention was to go to
Reynolds’ apartment to talk to Dang and fight with Reynolds. Cooper always
carried a .22 caliber handgun, but on that day, he armed himself with a much
more powerful handgun. When he arrived at Reynolds’ apartment, he got into
a verbal argument with Reynolds, which progressed into a physical fight. In the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 34A05-1511-CR-1992 | August 31, 2016 Page 4 of 5
process, Cooper’s handgun fell, and Cooper grabbed it and shot Reynolds.
Cooper fled the scene leaving Reynolds bleeding on the floor. The trial court
noted that Reynolds’ death was “senseless and tragic.” (Tr. p. 37).
[11] As to his character, the evidence shows that Cooper did not have a prior
criminal history, he pleaded guilty, and he showed remorse for his crime.
However, the fact that Cooper admitted that he purchased a good deal of
marijuana from people he did not know and that he went to these exchanges
while armed with a handgun, does not suggest that he led a law abiding life. In
sum, in light of the tragic circumstances surrounding the offense, and Cooper’s
character, we find the twenty-year sentence appropriate.
CONCLUSION
[12] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Cooper’s sentence is appropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[13] Affirmed.
[14] Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 34A05-1511-CR-1992 | August 31, 2016 Page 5 of 5