Peter M. Speziale 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 Jul 23 2019, 9:12 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Caroline B. Briggs Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Peter M. Speziale, July 23, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2656
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sean M. Persin,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79C01-1710-F4-45
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2656 | July 23, 2019 Page 1 of 4
[1] Peter Matt Speziale pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Level 5 felony
dealing in a narcotic drug and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine,
and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of five years and two
years respectively, with six years executed and one year suspended to
probation. On appeal, Speziale challenges the propriety and appropriateness of
his sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] The probable cause affidavit, which was included in Speziale’s pre-sentence
investigation report and not objected to, indicates that on April 11 and 20,
2017, law enforcement engaged the services of a confidential informant (CI) to
execute controlled buys of drugs from Speziale. The CI was searched, fitted
with a wire transmitter, and provided marked money to purchase the drugs.
The transactions, one of which occurred in a car and the other in a store, were
under police surveillance the entire time. During both encounters, Speziale
delivered heroin and methamphetamine to the confidential informant.
[4] On October 4, 2017, the State charged Speziale with numerous drug-related
offenses relating to the above controlled buys, including: Count I, Level 5
felony dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin); Count II, Level 6 felony possession
of a narcotic drug (heroin); Count III, Level 5 felony dealing in
methamphetamine; Count IV, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine;
Count V, Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin); Count VI, Level 6
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2656 | July 23, 2019 Page 2 of 4
felony possession of a narcotic drug (heroin); Count VII, Level 4 felony dealing
in methamphetamine; and Count VIII, Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine. On July 18, 2018, Speziale pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to Count I and Count VIII, and the State dismissed the remaining
charges and agreed not to file additional charges for methamphetamine and
heroin found on his person after his arrest. The plea agreement further
provided that sentencing would be left to the discretion of the trial court.
[5] Following a sentencing hearing on October 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced
Speziale to consecutive terms of five years for Count I and two years for Count
VIII. The court ordered six years be fully executed and one year suspended to
probation. Speziale now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as
necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[6] On appeal, Speziale challenges the propriety and appropriateness of his
sentence. Speziale, however, waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea
agreement. A defendant may waive the right to appellate review of his sentence
as part of a written plea agreement. Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 75 (Ind.
2008). Where a written plea agreement contains an express waiver of the right,
such waiver is valid and enforceable. 1 Id.1
We recognize that where a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that leaves sentencing to
the trial court’s discretion, the defendant still retains his right to appeal an illegal sentence. See Crider v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2656 | July 23, 2019 Page 3 of 4
[7] Here, Speziale’s written plea agreement explicitly provided:
The Defendant hereby waives the right to appeal any sentence
imposed by the Court, under any standard of review, including
but not limited to, an abuse of discretion standard and the
appropriateness of the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule
7(B), so long as the Court sentences the Defendant within the
terms of the plea agreement.
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 27. During the guilty plea hearing, Speziale stated
that he had discussed and reviewed the plea agreement before signing it and
that he understood the terms thereof. On two occasions, the court specifically
addressed with Speziale that the plea agreement provided he was waiving his
right to appeal his sentence, and Speziale stated that he understood. At
sentencing, the trial court reminded Speziale that he had waived his right to
appeal his sentence. The trial court sentenced Speziale within the terms of the
plea agreement, so he cannot now be heard to complain.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013). Here, Speziale does not argue that his sentence is illegal, only that the
imposition of consecutive sentences renders his sentence inappropriate. Speziale explicitly waived review of
his sentence in this regard.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2656 | July 23, 2019 Page 4 of 4