Lisa M. Morehouse v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 07 2016, 10:02 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
Brian A. Karle Gregory F. Zoeller
Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lisa M. Morehouse, November 7, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A02-1604-CR-868
v. Appeal from the
Tippecanoe Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Steven P. Meyer, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-1508-F3-11
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] After Lisa M. Morehouse (“Morehouse”) pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony
criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, Level 6 felony criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 1 of 10
recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony
strangulation, the trial court sentenced her to an aggregate term of seven years,
with six years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and
one year suspended to supervised probation. Morehouse appeals, asserting that
her sentence is inappropriate.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 20, 2015, Morehouse was an inmate at Tippecanoe County Jail
(“the Jail”), and at that time, L.M. (“Nurse”) was a correctional nurse at the
Jail. Nurse was distributing medication to inmates, and when she opened the
door to Morehouse’s cell, Morehouse threw a cup of water in Nurse’s face, put
her left arm around Nurse’s neck, placing her in a headlock, and held a pencil
to the right side of Nurse’s neck. Tr. at 11-12; Appellant’s App. at 11. Nurse felt
pain, had trouble breathing, and felt in fear for her life. Correctional officers
who were nearby heard Nurse yell for help, and they saw the incident and
intervened. Nurse experienced pain from the incident, and thereafter, she
sought a medical evaluation. Redness and abrasions to Morehouse’s neck and
head were noted, and Morehouse was diagnosed with “thoracic strain and
cervical pain.” Appellant’s App. at 11.
[4] On August 26, 2015, the State charged Morehouse with: Count I, criminal
confinement while armed with a deadly weapon as a Level 3 felony for
confining Nurse while holding a pencil close to her neck; Count II, criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 10
recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon as a Level 6 felony; Count III,
strangulation as a Level 6 felony; Count IV, battery resulting in bodily injury as
a Class A misdemeanor; and Count V, being an habitual offender. Id. at 6-10.
[5] In March 2016, Morehouse and the State entered into a negotiated plea
agreement wherein Morehouse pleaded guilty but mentally ill to an amended
Count I, in which the criminal confinement charge was reduced from a Level 3
to a Level 5 felony. Id. at 35-36. She also pleaded guilty but mentally ill to
Counts II and III, and the State dismissed the remaining charges, battery and
being an habitual offender. Id.
[6] At the sentencing hearing, Nurse testified and described that she was
“traumatized” by the incident with Morehouse on August 20 and that she
feared for her life that day. Tr. at 12. Nurse expressed that she now lives in
“constant fear,” has “trouble trusting people,” and experiences flashbacks to
being strangled and unable to breathe. Id. at 13. Morehouse made a statement
at sentencing, apologizing to Nurse and expressing remorse for her actions that
day. Morehouse also stated that she needed mental treatment and asked the
trial court “not to [] put me away in prison where I won’t get help[.]” Id. at 15.
[7] Counsel for both parties presented argument to the trial court regarding
sentencing. Morehouse’s attorney asked the trial court to recognize that
Morehouse has “a long history of mental illness,” which “played a substantial
role in the events that occurred that day,” and he further observed that
Morehouse also “struggle[s] with substance abuse addiction,” noting that, over
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 3 of 10
the past five years or so, Morehouse went through periods of relative stability to
“chaotic instability,” including the time in question. Id. at 16. The State
recognized Morehouse’s mental illness, but maintained that guilty but mentally
ill “is not an excuse and [] not necessarily a mitigating circumstance,” but
rather, “if she went into [DOC], [it] might get her treatment for mental illness.” 1
Id. at 21. The State reminded the trial court that Morehouse committed this
offense while she was incarcerated in connection with another offense and that
she has a criminal history that includes five convictions of battery on police
officers. Id.
[8] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court discussed the existence of various
aggravators, including “significant” misdemeanor and felony convictions,
violations of probation, violations of pre-trial release, and violations of
community corrections. Id. at 28. The trial court stated to Morehouse, “You
are a danger to others and, specifically[,] to law enforcement. You fight with
them and you get physical with them. You place them in danger.” Id. With
regard to Morehouse’s mental illness, the trial court observed, “I do recognize
that people do suffer from mental illness and it’s a serious, serious issue with
you. But you’ve got to be willing to get help and you’ve got to be willing to
deal with it and stay on top of it every day of your life.” Id. at 29-30.
1
While a defendant who is guilty but mentally ill is sentenced “in the same manner as a defendant found
guilty of the offense,” Indiana Code section 35-36-2-5(a), such defendant shall, however, “be further
evaluated and then treated in such a manner as is psychiatrically indicated for the defendant’s mental
illness.” Ind. Code § 35-36-2-5(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 4 of 10
[9] In its written sentencing statement, the trial court identified the following as
aggravating factors:
[T]he offense happened while Defendant was incarcerated; the
crimes were committed against a Nurse acting in the capacity of
her employment at the Tippecanoe County Jail; the impact the
crimes had on the [victim]; the Defendant’s extensive criminal
history; her violation of probation; her violation of pre-trial
release; the repetitive nature of the offenses against Public Safety
Officials; and proper attempts at rehabilitation have been
unsuccessful.
Appellant’s App. at 40. The trial court found that Morehouse’s mental illness2
and her expression of remorse were mitigating factors. Id.
[10] The trial court sentenced Morehouse as follows: Count I, six years of
incarceration in the DOC; Count II, one year in the DOC, suspended to
probation; and Count III, one year in the DOC, suspended to probation. Count
II was ordered to be served consecutive to Count I, and Counts II and III were
ordered concurrent with each other, for an aggregate sentence of seven years,
with one year suspended to probation. Id. at 40-41, 44. Morehouse now
appeals.
2
The psychological evaluation report of forensic psychologist Jeffrey Wendt, Ph.D. (“Dr. Wendt”),
contained in the pre-sentence investigation report, reflected that Morehouse “has a well documented history
of severe mental illness” and that she suffers from Bipolar I Disorder, severe with psychotic features, and
“[h]er condition is complicated by secondary diagnoses of anxiety disorders and borderline personality traits
that are exacerbated by chronic alcohol use and periodic drug abuse.” Appellant’s App. at 100. Dr. Wendt
concluded that Morehouse’s condition during the time of the offenses was the result of both mental illness
and residual effects of voluntary intoxication. Id. at 101.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 5 of 10
Discussion and Decision
[11] Morehouse claims that her seven-year sentence is inappropriate, arguing that it
was the maximum possible and that she is “not one of the worst of the worst
offenders deserving of a maximum sentence,” particularly given her history of
mental illness and her exhibited remorse for her conduct. Appellant’s Br. at 6;
Reply Br. at 5.
[12] “This court has authority to revise a sentence ‘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.’” Delao v. State, 940
N.E.2d 849, 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), trans.
denied. A defendant bears the burden of showing that both prongs of the inquiry
favor revision of his or her sentence. Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. 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 trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind.
2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[13] Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point
the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.
Id. at 1081. Morehouse pleaded guilty but mentally ill to Level 5 felony
criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, Level 6 felony criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 6 of 10
recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony
strangulation. Appellant’s App. 3, 35-38. A Level 5 felony conviction carries a
sentence of one to six years, with a three-year advisory sentence. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-6(b). A Level 6 felony conviction carries a sentence of six months to
three years with an advisory sentence of one and one-half years. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-7(a). Here, the trial court sentenced Morehouse to six years on the
convictions for amended Count I and a consecutive one year on the conviction
for Count II. The sentence for Count II ran concurrent with the one year
sentence on Count III, and the convictions for both Counts II and III were
suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, Morehouse claims that the
seven-year sentence, which was the maximum possible in this case,3 was
inappropriate.
[14] Concerning the nature of the offense, Morehouse contends that the seven-year
sentence, in this case a maximum, was not warranted because “[Morehouse’s]
actions were not committed with malice or motivated by greed; rather, her
actions were likely the product of a mental illness over which Morehouse had
no control[,]” and, further, Nurse “suffered only a temporary injury and [] the
confinement lasted only a few moments[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 8-9. With regard
to the proposition that Morehouse “had no control” over her mental illness, we
disagree. The record reflects that Morehouse had a long and documented
3
The parties agreed that the offenses arose form a single episode of criminal conduct, and because the most
serious crime for which Morehouse was sentenced was a Level 5 felony, the total sentence could not exceed
seven years under Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2(d)(2). Tr. at 23-24, 29.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 7 of 10
history of mental illness, requiring psychotropic medications and individual and
group therapy, and that she was able to “maintain relative stability when
compliant with treatment,” but she had a history of at times “inconsistent
attendance and participation in treatment.” Appellant’s App. at 101. The record
also indicates that her “chronic alcohol use and periodic drug use” also
contributed to her conduct in this case. Id. at 100. The trial court recognized
Morehouse’s mental illness, but reminded her, “you’ve got to be willing to get
help and you’ve got to be willing to deal with it and stay on top of it every day
of your life.” Tr. at 29-30.
[15] With respect to Morehouse’s claims regarding the “few moments” of
confinement and resulting “temporary” injury, Nurse testified at the sentencing
hearing that Morehouse attacked her while she was distributing medications.
Appellant’s Br. at 8-9. Morehouse pushed the door open and grabbed Nurse by
the neck, putting her in a headlock and causing her to have trouble breathing.
Morehouse also held a pencil to Nurse’s neck in a manner indicating she was
going to stab Nurse with it. Nurse testified that she feared she was going to die
when Morehouse grabbed her by the neck, and she described the continuing
negative impact that the incident has had on her daily life, explaining that she is
in “constant fear,” has an inability to trust people, and experiences flashbacks.
Tr. at 13. She characterized the impact as “a lifetime sentence” that she must
live with. Id. The trial court at the sentencing hearing expressed its view
regarding the nature of the offense:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 8 of 10
Based on your record and everything else I see here and the
offense that occurred and the seriousness and the way it was
carried out[,] I think you’d be looking at a lot more than seven
years. I’d reject this plea agreement, but for the mental illness.
Id. at 29 (emphasis added). Morehouse has failed to establish that the nature of
the offense supports a revision of her sentence.
[16] Regarding the character of the defendant, Morehouse has a criminal history
that includes four convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer, one
conviction for battery against a public official, two additional batteries, resisting
law enforcement, and at least eight alcohol-related offenses such as public
intoxication and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; she has faced
fifteen petitions to revoke probation. Tr. at 27-28; Appellant’s App. at 58-66.
Morehouse committed the current offenses while she was on probation for a
prior offense and while being released on bond for another. Her criminal
record, spanning over twenty-five years, reveals a disrespect for authority.
Morehouse has failed to show that her character favors a revision of her
sentence.
[17] On appeal, Morehouse argues that her mental illness and her genuine
expressions of remorse render the sentence inappropriate. However, this is
effectively an argument that those mitigators – which the trial court expressly
recognized – were deserving of more weight, and it is well-settled that “[t]he
relative weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors is not subject to
review.” Webb v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1082, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 9 of 10
denied; see also Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (trial
court not required to give same weight to proffered mitigators as does
defendant).
[18] The question before us is not whether another sentence is more appropriate;
instead, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Marley
v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. We cannot say
that the trial court’s imposition of an aggregate seven-year sentence, with one
year suspended to supervised probation, was inappropriate. See Hines v. State,
30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225-26 (Ind. 2015) (defendant’s maximum eight-year
sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement for attack on correctional
officer was not inappropriate).
[19] Affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1604-CR-868 | November 7, 2016 Page 10 of 10