Archie Lee Parker 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
court except for the purpose of establishing Dec 23 2019, 6:42 am
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
John Andrew Goodridge Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Benjamin J. Shoptaw
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Archie Lee Parker, December 23, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1658
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D03-1511-F5-7252
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] A jury found Archie Lee Parker guilty of aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony,
and he admitted to being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Parker
to ten years for the Level 3 felony and enhanced such sentence by ten years for
his habitual offender status. On appeal, Parker argues that his sentence is
inappropriate.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Allison Skelton and Raelene Stinson were neighbors. John Jackson was
Skelton’s boyfriend and the father of one of Skelton’s children, and Parker was
Stinson’s boyfriend. In early November 2015, Jackson asked Parker to move
Parker’s broken-down vehicle that had been parked in front of Skelton’s
residence for months to another location because it was impacting Skelton’s
and his ability to park near Skelton’s home. Parker indicated that “he was fine
with that” and that it would be “no problem.” Transcript Vol. II at 20. A couple
hours later, Parker was yelling obscenities and stating that he would not move
his vehicle. Parker left for a short time, and when he returned, he continued
screaming profanities and saying that he was going to kill Skelton, Jackson, and
their children.
[4] Two weeks later, on November 23, 2015, Jackson was taking trash out the back
door at Skelton’s house when Parker approached him and said, “I got you
now,” and then Jackson felt a punch or touch “like somebody pinched [him]”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 2 of 6
below his left chest. Id. at 49. Jackson threw two punches to gain separation
from Parker. Jackson did not feel right and then observed that his shirt was
ripped and that there was “trickling blood.” Id. He picked up the trashcan and
threw it at Parker, who appeared to be holding something “shiny.” Id. at 51.
[5] Skelton was on her way toward the back door when she heard commotion
outside. When she looked through the kitchen window, she saw Jackson
coming toward the house and observed that there was blood on his shirt.
Skelton ran outside and saw Parker holding something and watched as Jackson
threw the trashcan at him. When Parker saw Skelton, he ran from the scene.
Skelton helped Jackson into the house and called 911. She helped Jackson
apply pressure to his wound until emergency personnel arrived.
[6] On November 24, 2015, the State charged Parker with Count I, Level 5 felony
battery by means of a deadly weapon. On February 1, 2016, the State filed a
habitual offender enhancement. On February 11, 2016, the State charged
Parker with Count II, Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Count III, Level 5
felony bribery. 1 A two-day jury trial commenced on February 28, 2019. The
jury was unable to reach a verdict on Count I and rendered a guilty verdict on
Count II and a not guilty verdict on Count III. On June 3, 2019, Parker pled
1
The bribery charge stemmed from an encounter in August 2017 when Parker approached Jackson and
asked if he could “offer . . . some type of money and we make this all go away – make this disappear.” Id. at
52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 3 of 6
guilty to the habitual offender enhancement in exchange for dismissal of Count
I and four counts under another cause.
[7] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on June 18, 2019. The trial court
identified Parker’s criminal history and the circumstances of the offense as
aggravating circumstances and found no mitigating factors. The court
sentenced Parker to ten years for aggravated battery enhanced by ten years for
Parker’s status as a habitual offender. Parker now appeals. Additional facts
will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[8] We may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the
trial court's decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
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 v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the
outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the
end of the day turns on “our sense of 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.” Id. at 1224. 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 4 of 6
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The
burden is on the defendant to persuade us his sentence is inappropriate in light
of both the nature of the offense and his character. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d
1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006) (emphasis supplied).
[9] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the
statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense. Parker
was convicted of a Level 3 felony, the sentencing range for which is three to
sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.
[10] In challenging his sentence, Parker advances no argument as to how the nature
of the offense makes his sentence inappropriate. Parker has therefore waived
any appellate consideration of the nature of the offense. See Anderson v. State,
989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Waiver
notwithstanding, the circumstances of the offense are not deserving of a lesser
sentence. Parker instigated an unprovoked attack on his unsuspecting victim.
Indeed, Johnson suffered a slash-type wound below his left chest that required
thirteen staples. As the trial court found, the circumstances “could easily have
gone very badly . . . given the nature of the wound and how it was inflicted.”
Transcript Vol. II at 225.
[11] With regard to his character, Parker notes that prior to the instant offense, his
last felony conviction was in 2011, and before that in 2007 and 1999. He
asserts that such demonstrates that he “was able to live in society for
considerable amounts of time without committing felony offenses.” Appellant’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 5 of 6
Brief at 12. He argues that the staleness of his criminal history, in conjunction
with his age (55 years old), his health, and his ties with his family, render his
twenty-year sentence inappropriate.
[12] In considering Parker’s character, we note that his criminal history includes
felony convictions for dealing in cocaine, along with numerous misdemeanor
convictions for dealing in marijuana, battery/domestic battery, residential
entry, invasion of privacy, and criminal mischief, among others. Some of the
time periods Parker claims to have led a law-abiding life can be explained by
the fact that Parker was incarcerated. Contrary to Parker’s claim, his criminal
history shows that he has consistently been committing crimes since 1994. The
record also discloses that Parker has a problem with alcohol and other illegal
substances. Although Parker admitted to the habitual offender enhancement,
such was in exchange for dismissal of five other charges. His decision to admit
to the habitual enhancement was likely a pragmatic decision.
[13] Parker has failed to show us anything about the nature of the offense or his
character that would overcome the deference we give to the trial court’s
decision. In short, Parker has failed to establish that his twenty-year sentence is
inappropriate.
[14] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1658 | December 23, 2019 Page 6 of 6