Teresa Thornton 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 Jun 26 2019, 10:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath LLP Attorney General
Madison, Indiana
Megan M. Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Teresa Thornton, June 26, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-513
v. Appeal from the
Ripley Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Jeffrey Sharp, Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
69C01-1804-F5-18
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Teresa Thornton pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and
being a habitual offender, and the trial court sentenced her to ten years. She
now appeals, arguing that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and her character. We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] At the end of 2016, Thornton pled guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic
drug in Dearborn County. The court imposed a sentence of thirty years, with
six years to be served on home detention and twenty-four years suspended to
probation.
[3] On March 16, 2018, while Thornton was still serving that home-detention
sentence, Patty Napier told Indiana State Police troopers that Thornton had
sold her five oxycodone pills. Later that day, a search warrant was issued and
executed at Thornton’s home, and troopers found prescription oxycodone
bottles and pills. Troopers interviewed Thornton, and she admitted that she
trades pills for money or other pills.
[4] The State charged Thornton with Level 5 felony dealing in a schedule I, II, or
III controlled substance, Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and Level 6
felony maintaining a common nuisance. The State also alleged that Thornton
is a habitual offender. Thereafter, the State and Thornton entered into a plea
agreement under which Thornton would plead guilty to Level 5 felony dealing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5
in a narcotic drug and the habitual-offender allegation in exchange for dismissal
of the remaining charges and eligibility to enroll in the Purposeful Incarceration
program while at the Indiana Department of Correction. Sentencing was left to
the discretion of the trial court.
[5] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified the following aggravators:
(1) Thornton has an extensive criminal history spanning thirty-three years,
including seven felony convictions, nine misdemeanor convictions, and six
probation violations; (2) Thornton committed the present offense while on
home detention for a similar, serious offense;1 and (3) Thornton was found to
be at a high risk to reoffend. As a mitigating factor, the court recognized that
Thornton pled guilty and took responsibility for her actions. The court found
that the aggravators outweigh the mitigator and sentenced Thornton to ten
years—six years plus a four-year habitual-offender enhancement. The court
stated that “[i]f [Thornton] successfully completes the Purposeful Incarceration
Program, according to the Plea Agreement, she is entitled to petition to have
that sentence modified and the State will remain silent on that modification.”
Tr. p. 55.
[6] Thornton now appeals her sentence.
1
At the sentencing hearing, the judge actually said that Thornton committed this offense “while on
probation” for the Dearborn County conviction. Tr. p. 53. However, she had not yet been released to
probation in that case when she committed this offense; she was still serving the executed (home detention)
portion of her sentence. See Request for Home Detention Violation and Motion to Convert Hearing, 15D02-
1511-FA-000033 (Mar. 27, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[7] Thornton contends that her ten-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to
revise it pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an
appellate 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.” “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on 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.”
Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the
judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants have the burden of
persuading us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d
1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[8] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory
sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. For a person convicted of a
Level 5 felony, the sentencing range for a habitual-offender enhancement is two
to six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). As such, Thornton was facing a
maximum sentence of twelve years. The trial court sentenced her to ten years.
[9] Regarding the nature of her offense, we agree with Thornton that this is a
typical case of dealing drugs. However, Thornton’s decades-long criminal
history by itself more than justifies her ten-year sentence. According to the pre-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5
sentence investigation report, the accuracy of which Thornton does not
challenge, she has been convicted of seven prior felonies (operating a vehicle as
a habitual-traffic violator, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, habitual-
traffic violator after suspension for life, operating while intoxicated, habitual-
traffic offender, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and dealing in a narcotic
drug) and nine misdemeanors and has six probation violations. Appellant’s
App. Vol. III pp. 5-10. Additionally, she was actively serving her home-
detention sentence for a similar dealing conviction when she committed the
present offense. She was also given eligibility to enroll in the Purposeful
Incarceration program, which if completed may result in a sentence
modification. Based on Thornton’s criminal history, the fact that she
committed the present offense while still serving the executed portion of her
sentence for a similar dealing conviction, the fact that she did not receive the
maximum sentence here, and the fact that she may get her sentence modified
down the road, we cannot say that her ten-year sentence is inappropriate.
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5