Corey Harvey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Aug 26 2019, 8:31 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Corey Harvey, August 26, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-686
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1709-MR-34872
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In September of 2017, Corey Harvey got into an argument with Daquan
Proctor and others about the noise they were making outside of Harvey’s
apartment. Approximately thirty minutes later, Harvey approached Proctor
and shot him in the head, killing him. Following Harvey’s conviction for the
murder of Proctor, the trial court sentenced him to fifty-five years of
incarceration, with five years suspended and two of those suspended to
probation. Harvey contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because
we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 10, 2017, Joey Thompson lived with Danahea McFadden at the
Woodhaven Apartments in Indianapolis. At approximately 6:30 p.m.,
Thompson, Proctor, Jonte Williams, and a man known as A.Z. were in one of
the hallways of the apartment complex shooting dice. The group became loud,
and when Harvey opened his apartment door to tell the players to quiet down,
the intoxicated Proctor “g[o]t to talking back to him[,]” “cussing[,]” and
challenging him to come outside. Tr. Vol. II p. 244, 245. Harvey responded,
“hold that thought,” and shut the door. Tr. Vol. II p. 244.
[3] Approximately thirty minutes later, two of Harvey’s cousins arrived at a
parking lot in the apartment complex, one of whom was carrying a handgun.
Thompson apparently felt concerned enough by the cousins’ arrival that he
returned to his apartment and attempted to locate his handgun. Shortly
thereafter, Proctor, Williams, A.Z., McFadden’s cousin Chrishunna Blackman,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5
and Woodhaven resident Sequoia Radford were standing outside and talking
near Radford’s car when Radford saw somebody peeking around a corner.
Blackman advised Proctor that he needed to leave, and Blackman began
walking away in the direction of McFadden’s apartment when she was passed
by Harvey walking the other way. As Harvey passed Blackman, he began
shooting at Proctor. Harvey shot Proctor in the head, killing him, and also shot
him in the right hand, right shoulder, and left foot.
[4] On September 14, 2017, the State charged Harvey with, inter alia, the murder of
Proctor. On November 9, 2018, a jury found Harvey guilty of the murder of
Proctor. On February 22, 2019, the trial court sentenced Harvey to fifty-five
years of incarceration, with five years suspended and two of those suspended to
probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] We “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration 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.” Ind. Appellate
Rule 7(B). “Although appellate review of sentences must give due
consideration to the trial court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the
trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an
authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied.”
Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5
[6] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the question is not
whether another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the inquiry is
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136,
142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “[W]hether 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 myriad other factors that
come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). In addition to the “due consideration” we are required to give to the
trial court’s sentencing decision, “we understand and recognize the unique
perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State,
866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The sentencing range for murder is
forty-five to sixty-five years of incarceration, and the trial court ordered that
Harvey serve a fifty-five-year advisory sentence with five years suspended, two
of those suspended to probation. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3(a).
[7] The nature of Harvey’s offense supports the trial court’s sentencing decision.
The senselessness of Harvey’s crime stands out in particular, which crime was
apparently motivated by anger over an argument about too much noise in the
hallway outside Harvey’s door. It also is worth noting that when Harvey shot
Proctor in the head, over thirty minutes had passed since their argument.
Harvey had more than enough time to calm down and reconsider his course of
action, but did not. Finally, when Harvey opened fire, others were in the
vicinity and could have also been injured or killed. For example, it is fortunate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5
that Radford’s car was unoccupied, as it was hit by several rounds. The
senseless and egregious nature of Harvey’s crime justifies his sentence.
[8] Harvey’s character also supports the sentence he received. While Harvey’s
criminal history is not excessive, even a minor criminal history is evidence of
poor character. See Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874 (observing that even a minor
criminal record is a sign of a poor character). As a juvenile, Harvey was
charged in 2008 with committing resisting law enforcement, criminal trespass,
and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. As an adult, Harvey charged with
possession of marijuana in 2016, a charge that was dismissed, and with dealing
in marijuana and possession of marijuana in 2017, charges that were pending
when he was sentenced in this case. Harvey’s contacts with the juvenile and
criminal justice systems have not caused him to reform himself. Quite the
opposite, in fact, as Harvey has progressed from allegations of low-level drug
offenses straight to murder, which—to say the least—does not speak well of
Harvey’s character. Harvey has failed to establish that his advisory sentence for
murder is inappropriate.
[9] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5