Jason D. Crowder 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 18 2019, 9:01 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark A. Kiesler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Kiesler Law Office Attorney General
New Albany, Indiana
Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jason D. Crowder, June 18, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2106
v. Appeal from the Orange
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Steven L. Owen, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
59C01-1802-F4-131
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Jason D. Crowder pled guilty to burglary and theft, and the trial court
sentenced him to a total term of twelve years. He now appeals, arguing that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 5, 2018, officers from the Paoli Police Department were
dispatched to Todd Copeland’s home on a report of a burglary. After arriving,
Copeland walked the officers through his home and pointed out items that had
been disturbed and stolen, including Copeland’s motorcycle and deceased son’s
wallet. Copeland told the officers that all the rooms in the home had been
ransacked. Crowder was later arrested, and a gift card signed by Copeland was
found on him.
[3] The State charged Crowder with Level 4 felony burglary, Level 6 felony theft,
and Level 6 felony auto theft. The State also alleged that Crowder was a
habitual offender. Thereafter, the State and Crowder entered into a plea
agreement under which Crowder would plead guilty to burglary and theft, and
the State would dismiss the auto-theft charge and the habitual-offender
allegation. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 85. Sentencing was left to the discretion
of the trial court with the requirement that the sentences run concurrently. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified the following aggravators:
(1) Crowder had an extensive criminal history, including four prior felonies and
numerous misdemeanors and (2) Crowder had violated his probation twice. As
a mitigating factor, the court found that Crowder pled guilty and took
responsibility for his actions; however, the court noted that Crowder benefited
from the plea agreement. Finding that the aggravators “greatly outweigh” the
mitigators, the trial court sentenced Crowder to concurrent terms of twelve
years for burglary and two-and-a-half years for theft. Tr. p. 16.
[5] Crowder now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Crowder contends that his twelve-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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 5
persuading us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d
1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[7] Although Crowder pled guilty to two crimes, his plea agreement required
concurrent sentences, so the sentencing range he faced was that of his more
serious offense, Level 4 felony burglary. The sentencing range for a Level 4
felony is two to twelve years with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code
§ 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of twelve years.
Crowder asks us to reduce his sentence to the advisory term of six years. We
decline to do so.
[8] With respect to the nature of the offense, Crowder argues that his burglary was
“no more egregious than the typical [b]urglary.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. The
State asserts the burglary “was far from typical,” as Crowder ransacked the
undisturbed room of Copland’s deceased son. Appellee’s Br. p 10. While there
is no evidence that Crowder knew that he was ransacking the room of
Copeland’s deceased son, he does not dispute that he ransacked the house,
conduct that goes beyond the basic elements of burglary.
[9] In any event, Crowder’s criminal history by itself supports a twelve-year
sentence in this case. Crowder has been convicted of four felonies and ten
misdemeanors and has two probation violations. Appellant’s App. Vol. II. pp.
93-96. Although Crowder notes that none of his convictions are for violent
offenses, these convictions are his fifth and sixth felony convictions. Further, as
a result of Crowder pleading guilty, the State did not pursue a habitual-offender
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 4 of 5
enhancement, which could have resulted in as many as twenty additional years
in prison. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i). Given Crowder’s criminal history
paired with the favorable plea agreement he received, we cannot say that his
sentence of twelve years is inappropriate.
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 5 of 5