Ronald W. Ramsey 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
Sep 16 2019, 6:43 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Brooklyn, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald W. Ramsey, September 16, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-717
v. Appeal from the
Vigo Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Sarah K. Mullican, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1701-F5-239
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Ronald W. Ramsey pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery on a public safety
officer resulting in bodily injury and was sentenced to three years, with two
years suspended to probation. He now appeals, contending that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On January 18, 2017, Terre Haute Police Department Officer Joshua Goldner
responded to a call concerning an intoxicated person, later identified as
Ramsey, who was reported to have possibly overdosed on pills. Medics were
already on the scene when Officer Goldner arrived and were attempting to
assess and assist Ramsey, who medics advised was being aggressive and
uncooperative. Ramsey pushed past his friend, who was trying to help calm
Ramsey, grabbing two kitchen knives and running out of the residence. Other
officers arrived to assist, and Ramsey refused orders to put down the knives.
He ran again, but was tased and handcuffed. After officers assisted him to his
feet to get him on a stretcher and transport him to a hospital, Officer Goldner
began checking Ramsey for weapons, when Ramsey became uncooperative
again, pulling away from Officer Goldner and yelling at him to stop. Officers
wrestled Ramsey to the ground to gain control of him, and, during this time,
Ramsey grabbed Officer Goldner’s leg and bit it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[4] On January 24, 2017, the State charged Ramsey with Level 5 felony battery
causing injury to a public safety officer and Level 6 felony resisting law
enforcement. Ramsey was released on his own recognizance that same date,
but on May 17, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke his release for failing to
enroll in or report to an alcohol and drug program. On February 28, 2018, the
State filed an amended petition to revoke Ramsey’s release, stating that Ramsey
completed an assessment with Choices Consulting in August 2017 and was
referred to Hamilton Center for a mental health evaluation but that he had
failed to contact Hamilton Center. Following a July 2018 hearing, Ramsey was
again released.
[5] On September 13, 2018, Ramsey pled guilty to the Level 5 felony battery in
exchange for the State’s dismissal of the Level 6 felony and a three-year cap on
his executed sentence. At the February 2019 sentencing hearing, Ramsey
testified that on the date of the current offense, he had been at a party where he
was drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana and acknowledged that he was
“so out of it” that he did not really remember what happened. Transcript Vol. II
at 19. Ramsey added that he was later told that the marijuana was laced with
some other substance. He stated that, after the incident occurred, he did not
drink alcohol but continued to smoke marijuana. Ramsey also testified that he
was working two jobs and had been doing so since the incident at issue
occurred. Ramsey testified that he had completed treatment at Hamilton
Center, and documentation was submitted from Hamilton Center stating that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 3 of 7
Ramsey completed his anger management assessment, as well as recommended
therapy sessions and treatment.
[6] The trial court noted Ramsey’s criminal history and the fact that, although he
sought treatment, Ramsey “continued to use marijuana” while he was released.
Transcript Vol. II at 35. The court sentenced Ramsey to an advisory three-year
sentence, with two years suspended to probation. Ramsey now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[7] Ramsey contends that his sentence is inappropriate. Pursuant to Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), this court 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. Our Supreme Court has explained that the principal role of 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). That is, “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.’” Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 4 of 7
persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122
(Ind. 2015).
[8] Whether a 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. In conducting our review, we may consider “all aspects of the
penal consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing, i.e., whether it
consists of executed time, probation, suspension, home detention, or placement
in community corrections, and whether the sentences run concurrently or
consecutively.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). Ramsey
bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and his character. Id.
[9] 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. Childress, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). Here, Ramsey
was convicted of one Level 5 felony, for which the sentencing range is between
one and six years, with the advisory being three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-
6. The trial court sentenced Ramsey to the advisory three years, suspending
two of those to probation. In seeking revision of his sentence, Ramsey
maintains that the nature of the offense was “not remarkable” and that,
following the offense, he obtained housing and employment and participated in
all required treatment, which, he urges, reflects positively on his character.
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 5 of 7
[10] We have recognized that “[t]he nature of the offense is found in the details and
circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s
participation.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Here,
while we agree with Ramsey that “thankfully, the officer involved was not
seriously injured,” Appellant’s Brief at 7, we disagree that the nature of the
offense warrants revision of his sentence. Ramsey was repeatedly
uncooperative and aggressive with officers, running with two kitchen knives
and refusing commands to drop them. After being tased a first time, Ramsey
was initially compliant but again became uncooperative, pulling away from and
yelling at officers. As officers attempted to restrain him on the ground, he
grabbed Officer Goldner’s leg and bit it, at which time he was tased a second
time. We agree with the trial court that the incident was “pretty serious” and,
although Ramsey stated that he had unwittingly ingested something with the
marijuana, “that doesn’t diminish what happened to the police [officer].”
Transcript Vol. II at 35. We are not persuaded that the nature of the offense
renders his advisory sentence inappropriate.
[11] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant factor is the
defendant’s criminal history. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). Ramsey has four felony convictions in Missouri in 1988: murder,
armed criminal action, burglary, and controlled substance for which he received
concurrent sentences of twenty-five years, five years, three years, and one year.
After serving what he thought was about seventeen years, Ramsey was released
on parole for about four years until, in 2006, his parole was revoked for a new
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 6 of 7
arrest on charges of attempted assault on a law enforcement officer and
burglary. 1 At some point after again being released on parole, Ramsey was
arrested in Indiana in 2014 for false informing and operating a motor vehicle
without having received a license. In September 2016, he was released from
parole, and, a few months later, in January 2017, he committed the current
offense. We agree with the State that his “convictions for serious offenses and
his repeated violations of release conditions” do not reflect positively on his
character. Appellee’s Brief at 11. We recognize that Ramsey completed the
court-ordered treatment, but the record suggests that his compliance occurred
after the State filed two petitions to revoke his release. Ramsey has failed to
meet his burden to persuade us that his three-year sentence with two years
suspended is inappropriate.
[12] Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
The presentence investigation report indicates those charges were dismissed, but Ramsey testified at the
sentencing hearing that they were not dismissed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-717 | September 16, 2019 Page 7 of 7