Torrey Pargo v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
FILED
any court except for the purpose of Jan 31 2013, 9:06 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ERIC KOSELKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TORREY PARGO, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1207-CR-351
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Rueben B. Hill, Judge
Cause No. 49F18-1110-FD-77452
January 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PYLE, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Torrey Pargo (“Pargo”) appeals his sentence for Class D felony intimidation.1
We affirm.
ISSUE
Whether Pargo’s sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B).
FACTS
On October 30, 2011, Jackie Anderson (“Anderson”) babysat children belonging
to Pargo and his girlfriend, Lucinda Stiles (“Stiles”). Stiles instructed Anderson not to let
anyone else leave with the children. That afternoon, Pargo called Anderson and told her
that he was coming to pick up his children. Mindful of the instructions given to her by
Stiles, Anderson told Pargo he could not pick up the children. Pargo responded that he
“was coming to get his motherfucking kids.” (Tr. 9). Pargo arrived later at Anderson’s
apartment demanding to pick up his children. Anderson’s husband answered the door,
and Pargo was again told that he could not leave Anderson’s apartment with the children.
Pargo responded that he was “going to shoot this motherfucker up if I don’t get my
motherfucking kids,” and that he was going to his car to “get his gun and blow up the
motherfucking apartment….” (Tr. 13, 20-21). Anderson’s daughter called the police,
and Pargo was arrested.
On November 3, 2011, the State charged Pargo with intimidation, a Class D
felony. Pargo waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial commenced on May 14,
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
2
2012. The trial court found Pargo guilty of intimidation and set the matter for sentencing
on June 25, 2012.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Pargo’s criminal history as an
aggravator2 and his demonstrated remorse to be a mitigator. The trial court imposed a
three (3) year sentence, with two (2) years executed in the Department of Correction and
one (1) year suspended to probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered
Pargo to complete twelve (12) weeks of anger management classes, write a letter of
apology to the victims, and pay fines and costs.
DECISION
Pargo argues that his sentence of three (3) years, with two (2) years executed in
the Department of Correction and one (1) year suspended to probation was inappropriate.
Pargo suggests we should revise the executed portion of his sentence to one-and-a-half (1
½) years.
Rule 7(B) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure gives this Court the power
to revise an inappropriate sentence in light of the nature of the offense and character of
the offender, giving due consideration to the trial court’s decision. The defendant must
persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080
(Ind. 2006). Under Rule 7(B), we seek “to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify
some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the
2
Pargo’s criminal history consists of the following: (1) a 2005 misdemeanor conviction for domestic
battery; (2) a 2006 misdemeanor conviction for battery; (3) a 2006 felony conviction for possession of
marijuana; (4) two felony convictions in 2006 for criminal confinement; and (5) a 2008 felony conviction
for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
3
sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately depends upon “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.” Id. at 1224.
In determining whether a sentence is appropriate, we first look to the advisory
sentence provided by statute. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. A Class D felony provides
a sentencing range between six (6) months and three (3) years, with an advisory sentence
of one-and-a-half (1 ½) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.
Regarding the nature of the offense and Pargo’s character, Pargo blames this
incident and his past conduct on problems with anger. (Tr. 48, 49). We agree with his
assessment. Pargo’s criminal history includes convictions for two (2) misdemeanors and
three (3) felonies. Of particular concern are his convictions for criminal confinement, a
Class B felony in 2006, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a
Class B felony in 2008, and resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony in 2012. In
2006, as a part of his probation, Pargo was ordered to complete anger management
counseling. In 2008, Pargo was granted alternative placement for a portion of his
executed sentence. That placement was revoked for, among other violations, threatening
physical harm to a community corrections staffer. Finally, in 2012, while awaiting trial
for the matter before us, Pargo was involved in an altercation with jail officers resulting
in a subsequent charge and conviction. Despite the benefit of previous anger
4
management counseling and being placed in community corrections instead of prison,
Pargo continually refuses to modify his behavior.
In light of the nature of the offense and Pargo’s character, we conclude that
Pargo’s sentence is not inappropriate and affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
ROBB, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.
5