Anthony J. Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 30 2019, 11:03 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony J. Williams, September 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-974
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1808-F4-2699
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Anthony J. Williams appeals his sentence following his conviction for unlawful
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony, pursuant
to a guilty plea. Williams raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 3, 2018, Williams’ daughter was arguing with her boyfriend, Deric
Suddoth, while in Williams’ home. At one point, Suddoth tried to pull his
girlfriend out of the house by her arms. Williams’ wife, Rubye Williams, asked
Suddoth to leave, but he refused. Rubye then called Williams, who was not at
the house at the time, and asked him to get Suddoth out of the house. Williams
returned to the house and saw his daughter and Suddoth arguing near the
street. Williams and Suddoth then became involved in a physical altercation,
and Williams hit Suddoth with a handgun. At that point, the handgun
discharged, and a bullet struck Suddoth in the face.
[3] The State charged Williams with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm
by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony; two counts of battery, as Level 5
felonies; and one count of criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony.
Thereafter, Williams pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, the parties agreed that Williams’ sentence would not exceed eight
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 6
years and that any executed time would be served in a community corrections
program. In exchange for Williams’ plea, the State dismissed the remaining
charges. Following a hearing, the trial court accepted Williams’ guilty plea.
The court then sentenced Williams to eight years, with five years in a
community corrections home detention program and three years suspended to
probation. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Williams contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he
Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of
the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” This court
has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the
legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.”
Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana
Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 6
[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate 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 facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).
[6] The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two years to twelve years, with an
advisory sentence of six years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2019). Here, the
trial court identified as aggravating factors Williams’ criminal history and the
fact that Williams was on parole when he committed the instant offense. And
the court identified as mitigators the fact that Williams had accepted
responsibility for his actions and that he suffers from post-traumatic stress
disorder. The trial court found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators
and imposed a sentence of eight years, with five years in a community
corrections home detention program and three years suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 6
[7] On appeal, Williams asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense because the offense was “somewhat justified” since “he
was protecting his family” from Suddoth. Appellant’s Br. at 8. And Williams
asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because “he
accepted responsibility for his actions immediately by speaking to police and
admitting his involvement.” Id.[8] However, Williams has not met his burden to demonstrate that his sentence is
inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Williams admitted to
having possessed a firearm despite the fact that he has a prior conviction that
qualified him as a serious violent felon. Further, Williams used that handgun
to strike Suddoth, which resulted in Suddoth sustaining a gunshot wound to the
face. And, while Williams contends that he was justified in his possession of
the firearm because he was protecting his family, Williams had possessed the
firearm before the altercation between his daughter and Suddoth. In other
words, Williams unlawfully possessed the firearm entirely independent of the
circumstances in which he used it. Accordingly, we cannot say that Williams’
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.
[9] As to his character, Williams has a lengthy criminal history that spans several
states and includes prior convictions for burglary, forgery, possession of a
controlled substance, and receiving stolen property. In addition, Williams’
criminal history includes two federal convictions for possession of a firearm by
a serious violent felon. And Williams was on parole for those federal
convictions at the time of the current offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[10] Still, Williams asserts that his sentence is inappropriate despite his criminal
history because the instant offense constituted a violation of the terms of his
parole, which violation will “likely” result in Williams serving 33 to 41 months
in federal prison. Appellant’s Br. at 8. In essence, Williams contends that “an
8-year sentence to be served after nearly 4 years in federal prison was
inappropriate.” Id. Williams’ argument on this point is not well taken. We
acknowledge that Williams is likely to serve time in a federal prison because he
violated the terms of his federal parole. But we cannot say that Williams’
sentence for the instant offense is inappropriate simply because the offense will
also result in the revocation of his parole in another case. Rather, as discussed
above, Williams has a lengthy criminal history that reflects poorly on his
character. We conclude that Williams’ sentence is not inappropriate, and we
affirm his sentence.
[11] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 6 of 6