Scott Giles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 29 2016, 6:17 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kara A. Hancuff Gregory F. Zoeller
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Scott Giles, March 29, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
53A01-1508-CR-1244
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc R. Kellams,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
53C02-1410-FC-1018
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 1 of 10
[1] Scott Giles appeals his sentence for forgery and theft as class C felonies. Giles
raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Richard Wells employed Giles for ten years as a property manager maintenance
technician for Richard Wells Rentals. Between August 1, 2013, and June 30,
2014, Giles stole various checks from Wells. Giles then filled out those checks,
signed Wells’s name to them without any authority, and cashed the checks.
The largest check cashed was for $1,500. Giles ultimately stole a total of
$189,000 from Wells during that period of time.
[3] On October 27, 2014, the State charged Giles with forgery and theft as class C
felonies. On July 20, 2015, the court held a hearing, and Giles pled guilty as
charged. The court explained that the two charges were considered an episode
of criminal conduct and that the maximum sentence could not exceed the
advisory sentence for a felony which is one class higher than the most serious of
the felonies charged, or ten years.
[4] Giles testified that he “used the money to, um, procure materials that I needed
for work, um, with his business,” but admitted that most of the money was
taken for his own benefit. Transcript at 10. When asked what he did with the
money, Giles stated: “Um, provided for my family, gave them whatever they
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 2 of 10
wanted [inaudible].” Id. at 11. The court accepted the pleas and entered
judgment of conviction under each count.
[5] The trial court then proceeded to a sentencing hearing. Giles stated: “I wish I’d
never done it. Um, but I kind of lost my mind in that – that point in time and I
understand that it really destroyed my life at this point.” Id. at 12-13. He
testified that Wells was good to him for the ten years that Wells employed him.
The court then told Giles to turn around and tell Wells that face to face, and
Giles then stated:
Mr. Wells, you were good to me for the ten (10) years I worked
for you and my grief got the best of me and I’m sorry for, uh,
jeopardizing your health and your job. Um, I wish I could do it
over, I would do much better by you.
Id. at 13.
[6] Giles testified that he spent all the money and that he had nothing to show for
it. When asked by his counsel whether he tried to procure some funds to pay
Wells back, Giles testified that he went to a couple of banks looking for a loan
but they would not give him a loan because his credit was not good, and
“[a]lso, they told me I had to get an account with them.” Id. Giles stated that
he was working and wanted to start paying back the money at the rate of at
least $100 per month. When asked by his counsel regarding how much he
would pay if he acquired a second job, Giles stated: “Then even more, um, up
to hopefully two hundred, if more. I, I do have child support, um, I’m
supporting my child and two other children that are my wife’s.” Id. at 14.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 3 of 10
[7] Giles asked that he serve any time on home detention and stated: “I just don’t
want to be separated from my family. I want to work and get this taken care of
and do my time and just get back to being normal again and not having to
worry about this stuff.” Id. at 15. The court observed that it would take 157.5
years to pay off the amount stolen at $100 per month. The prosecutor argued
for the maximum aggregate sentence of ten years and emphasized that Wells
had to defer his retirement, the discovery of the theft caused him serious illness
and a heart attack, and there is no way that Giles would ever pay the money
back during Wells’s life or even after his death.
[8] The court noted that Giles was forty years old and had no prior criminal history
and no drug and alcohol involvement, and that the Indiana Risk Assessment
System showed him as a low risk to re-offend. The court found that it was an
aggravating factor that Wells was at least sixty-five years of age, “in fact, in
excess of that, sufficiently to really aggravate the circumstances.” 1 Id. at 17.
Giles’s counsel then stated:
I was just going to mention one other thing and, um, that is that
unlike many people we deal with Mr. Giles has never denied that
he did this. He has – he’s wanted a plea agreement this whole
time and obviously none is coming. He has admitted to it
practically from the start. Even admitted to it under oath in
another trial in which he was the victim.
1
According to his victim impact statement, Wells was eighty-six years old.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 4 of 10
Id.
[9] After a recess, the court stated:
Well, there’s a number of ways to look at this situation, Scott.
Um, first, as the prosecutor looked at it, and as is reasonable to
look at it, you had a victim of advanced years, and you stole a lot
of money. This wasn’t just a couple hundred dollars, this is
thousands and thousands of dollars, which, although I’m never
sure what the Court of Appeals will do, I believe, because it’s
such an outrageously large amount of money, would justify a
maximum sentence. Then you look at it from the prospective
[sic] of you have no prior criminal history, um, and you pled
guilty which saved the State and the victim the requirement of
going through a trial, which is deserving of some consideration.
Id. at 19-20. The court stated that “[i]t is a serious – it is a serious crime and the
victim was greatly harmed as a result and it demands I believe, um, a term of
incarceration.” Id. at 21-22. The court sentenced Giles to eight years for each
count and ordered the sentences to be served concurrent with each other.
Discussion
[10] The issue is whether Giles’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. 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.” Under this rule,
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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 5 of 10
Relief is available if, after due consideration of the trial court’s sentencing
decision, this court finds that in our independent judgment, the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). “[S]entencing is
principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should
receive considerable deference.” Id. (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219,
1222 (Ind. 2008)). “[A]ppellate review should focus on the forest – the
aggregate sentence – rather than the trees – consecutive or concurrent, number
of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell, 895
N.E.2d at 1225. “[W]hether 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 myriad other factors that come to light
in a given case.” Hines, 30 N.E.3d at 1225 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at
1224).
[11] Giles argues that the maximum sentence on each count was inappropriate. He
asserts that he accepted responsibility for his conduct, has no prior criminal
history, supports his wife’s two children and plans to adopt them, and is current
on his child support obligations with respect to his biological son. He also
argues that he is unlikely to commit another crime and is likely to respond
positively to probation or short-term imprisonment. He points to his testimony
that he was employed at a new job and would make payments to Wells of at
least $100 per month.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 6 of 10
[12] The State argues that Giles’s theft was almost twice the threshold amount for
theft as a class C felony, that the offense occurred over a period of several
months and involved 224 stolen checks, and that Wells believes he must work
into his nineties in order to recoup the stolen funds. The State also contends
that, while Giles does not have a criminal history, his character is such that he
is willing to violate the trust and abuse the generosity of his elderly employer. It
also asserts that Giles’s guilty plea is likely a pragmatic decision based on the
fact that there were 224 checks made out to him in his handwriting.
[13] To the extent that Giles argues he received the maximum sentence on each
count, we observe that he received the maximum sentence for each count,2 but
not the maximum aggregate sentence. At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court
explained that the two charges were considered an episode of criminal conduct
and that the maximum sentence could not exceed the advisory sentence for a
felony which is one class higher than the most serious of the felonies charged,
or ten years. At the time of the offenses, Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2 provided in part:
[E]xcept for crimes of violence, the total of the consecutive terms
of imprisonment, exclusive of terms of imprisonment under IC
35-50-2-8 and IC 35-50-2-10, to which the defendant is sentenced
for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal
conduct shall not exceed the advisory sentence for a felony which
2
At the time of the offenses, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provided that “[a] person who commits a Class C felony
shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being
four (4) years.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 7 of 10
is one (1) class of felony higher than the most serious of the
felonies for which the person has been convicted.
Thus, assuming that the offenses constituted an episode of criminal conduct as
stated by the trial court,3 Giles could have been sentenced to a maximum
sentence of ten years, which is the advisory sentence for a class B felony, the
felony one class higher than the class C felonies with which Giles was charged.
Accordingly, we cannot say that Giles received the maximum aggregate
sentence.
[14] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals Giles worked for Wells for ten
years and that between August 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, he stole various
checks from Wells, filled them out, and cashed them. The largest check Giles
cashed was for $1,500. During the period of eleven months, Giles stole a total
of $189,000, which corresponds to an average of $17,181.81 per month.
According to Wells’s victim impact statement, Wells was charged fees and
penalties from different businesses that had not received their automatic
payments because Giles had depleted his account. Most of the money was
stolen from a combined operating account and retirement account, it will take
Wells nearly five years of operating his business to recover the stolen funds, and
he was eighty-six years old at the time of sentencing. Wells also stated that he
believed the realization of the amount of money stolen led to his heart attack on
3
At the time of the offenses, Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(b) provided that an “‘episode of criminal conduct’ means
offenses or a connected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 8 of 10
October 2, 2014, and that Giles was a trusted worker for ten years and lived
rent free for years in a $600 per month house.
[15] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Giles pled guilty almost
nine months after being charged and has no prior criminal history. Giles
reported that he has a nine-year-old son and is current with his obligation to pay
ninety-three dollars per week in child support. The presentence investigation
report (“PSI”) indicates that Giles reported that he has two stepchildren and
that he voiced a desire to eventually adopt them. Giles reported that he has
smoked marijuana no more than one to two times per week. The PSI indicates
that his overall risk assessment score placed him in the low risk to reoffend
category. According to Wells’s victim impact statement, the house where Giles
had been staying was inspected on December 2, 2014, and Giles’s white cat was
found starving inside the house, the side door was ajar, and the house “was a
total mess.” Appellant’s Appendix at 32. Wells also asserted that Giles had not
vacated the premises since receiving a letter in October 2014 instructing him to
do so and that he had failed to pay the water, electric, and gas bills.
[16] After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, and in light of the repeated
withdrawals and amount of the loss, we cannot say that the aggregate sentence
of eight years is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.
Conclusion
[17] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Giles’s sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 9 of 10
[18] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1508-CR-1244 | March 29, 2016 Page 10 of 10