Trevor J. Laughman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 22 2017, 10:26 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Peter D. Todd Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Trevor J. Laughman, March 22, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A04-1608-CR-2003
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable George
Appellee-Plaintiff. Biddlecome, Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D01-1505-F6-481
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Trevor Laughman appeals the two-and-one-half year sentence imposed for
possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Laughman raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
[3] On March 23, 2015, Elkhart Police Officer Dan Mayer was on patrol. Officer
Mayer saw a bicyclist, who was later identified as Laughman, traveling south in
the northbound lanes of the street. Lauhman was “coming head on with
traffic,” and there was no bicycle lane available. Tr. p. 83. Officer Mayer
initiated a traffic stop and learned Laughman had valid warrant from the
Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department. Officer Mayer arrested Laughman,
searched him, and discovered a small bag that contained a substance later
identified as crack cocaine.
[4] The State charged Laughman with possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. In
June 2016, a jury found Laughman guilty of the charge, and on August 5, 2016,
the trial court sentenced Laughman to two-and-one-half years in the
Department of Correction. Laughman now appeals his sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Analysis
[5] Laughman argues that his maximum, executed sentence is inappropriate and
should be revised. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows us to revise an
appellant’s sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial
court’s decision, we find that sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and character of the offender. We must give the trial court’s
decision due consideration because 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 principal role of appellate
review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not to achieve a
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). An appellant bears the burden of persuading us her sentence is
inappropriate. Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006)).
[6] Regarding the nature of the offense, we acknowledge Laughman’s argument
that the circumstances surrounding his possession of cocaine were benign
compared to cases in which appellants have possessed the drug and
simultaneously been involved in violent crimes. However, Laughman’s
character—namely his lengthy criminal history—more than justifies his
sentence.
[7] Laughman’s criminal history is comprised of nineteen misdemeanor
convictions and two felony convictions. Laughman’s prior convictions include
driving offenses, alcohol-related offenses, drug convictions, robbery, and theft.
Laughman has a history of both alcohol and drug addictions and “has been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 3 of 4
given at least three opportunities to address those addictions” in the
Department of Correction and in local programs. All of those efforts have
failed, and Laughman has “refused to successfully address his addictions.” Tr.
p. 155. In light of Laughman’s character, Laughman’s sentence is not
inappropriate.
Conclusion
[8] Laughman’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and his character. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 4 of 4