Nathan McFarland v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Sep 04 2015, 8:33 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark I. Cox Gregory F. Zoeller
Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nathan McFarland, September 4, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
89A01-1412-CR-532
v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Charles K. Todd, Jr.,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Cause No. 89D01-1305-FC-43
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Nathan McFarland (McFarland), appeals his thirteen-
year sentence for battery, a Class C felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2013), and
his adjudication as a habitual offender, I.C. § 35-50-2-8 (2013).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] McFarland raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether
McFarland’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On May 12, 2013, which happened to be Mother’s Day, Lindsay Schenkel
(Schenkel)—McFarland’s girlfriend—went to visit James Goubeaux
(Goubeaux) and his girlfriend, Jessica Hersey (Hersey), at their apartment in
Richmond, Indiana. At some point, Hersey left her apartment to go to the
store. While at the apartment, Schenkel consumed eighty dollars’ worth of
heroin. Sometime after lunch, McFarland arrived at Goubeaux’s and Hersey’s
apartment. Prior to McFarland’s arrival, he and Schenkel had been calling and
texting each other, and McFarland was furious that Schenkel was using heroin
even after suspecting that she was pregnant. When McFarland entered the
apartment, he started arguing with Schenkel. Goubeaux informed McFarland
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 2 of 6
that he could not argue in his home. At that point, McFarland grabbed
Schenkel by her sweatshirt and escorted her out of the apartment. They both
then walked to Schenkel’s vehicle, with McFarland sitting in the passenger’s
seat and Schenkel in the driver’s seat. Moments later, Hersey arrived at the
apartment parking lot and when she saw Schenkel inside her vehicle, she
approached Schenkel’s vehicle and opened the driver’s door. As Hersey was
pleading with Schenkel not to leave, McFarland was screaming at Schenkel
stating that she was a “whore [for] sleeping with other guys for [] crack and
meth.” (Transcript p. 364.). In addition, McFarland was pulling Schenkel’s
hair. Hersey eventually freed Schenkel from McFarland’s hold, and she pulled
Schenkel out of the vehicle. The yelling from the altercation attracted a crowd
of observers. A neighbor, Jeff Gentry (Gentry), approached McFarland from
the passenger door to try to intervene. In turn, McFarland jerked the passenger
door open, got out of the vehicle and stabbed an unarmed Gentry in the left side
of his torso. McFarland also flashed his knife to Gentry’s friend and told him
to back off. Furthermore, McFarland made physical threats to all present that,
if they came closer, he would kill them. McFarland then got inside Schenkel’s
vehicle and quickly drove off. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived at the scene.
[5] Two days later, on May 14, 2013, the State filed an Information charging
McFarland with battery, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-42-2-1, as well as an
habitual offender adjudication, I.C. § 35-50-2-8. A three-day jury trial was held
on October 20-22, 2014. At the close of the evidence, the jury found
McFarland guilty of battery. McFarland then admitted to being a habitual
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 3 of 6
offender. McFarland’s sentencing hearing was held on November 20, 2014,
wherein the trial court sentenced him to six years for the battery offense, and an
additional seven years for the habitual offender finding, for an aggregate
sentence of thirteen years.
[6] McFarland now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION1
[7] McFarland contends that his aggregate thirteen-year sentence is inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule
7(B) provides that we “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.” The burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that
his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080
(Ind. 2006). “Ultimately the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be
served are the issues that matter.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224
1
Pursuant to Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(2)(b) and Indiana Code section 35-38-1-13, the presentence
investigation (PSI) report must be excluded from public access. However, in this case, the information
contained in the PSI report “is essential to the resolution” of McFarland’s claim on appeal. Ind. Admin.
Rule 9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c). Accordingly, we have included confidential information in this decision only to the
extent necessary to resolve the appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 4 of 6
(Ind. 2008). Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate 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 a myriad of other considerations that come to
light in a given case. Id.
[8] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016,
1019 (Ind. 2012). For his Class C felony, McFarland faced a sentencing range
of two to eight years, with the advisory sentence being four years. In addition,
on the habitual offender finding, Indiana Code section 35-50-2-8(h) limits the
enhancement of a sentence for being a habitual offender to no “more than three
(3) times the advisory sentence for the underlying offense.” Since the
underlying offense was a Class C felony which carries a four-year advisory
sentence, the maximum possible enhancement was twelve years. Here, the trial
court imposed a six-year sentence for his battery offense and seven years for the
habitual offender enhancement.
[9] Turning to the nature of the offense, Gentry was simply trying to quell the
disagreement between McFarland and Schenkel only to end up being stabbed in
the torso. Gentry’s wounds required medical treatment. Furthermore,
McFarland also made physical threats to all present that he would harm them if
they came closer.
[10] With respect to McFarland’s character, the record shows that McFarland has
shown an ongoing disregard for the laws of this State. McFarland had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 5 of 6
accumulated an extensive criminal history by the time of sentencing, despite the
fact that he was only twenty-seven years old. His offenses included seven
felony convictions and six misdemeanors in five different causes since 2005. In
addition, the PSI reveals that McFarland has had two probation violations
which show his disdain for authority and unwillingness to comply with the law.
[11] In light of the facts surrounding the nature of McFarland’s offense and his
character, we conclude that McFarland has failed to meet his burden of
persuading us that his thirteen-year sentence is inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
[12] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that McFarland’s sentence is not
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[13] Affirmed.
[14] Friedlander, Sr. J. and Brown, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 89A01-1412-CR-532 | September 4, 2015 Page 6 of 6