William A. Parks v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before May 22 2014, 10:32 am
any 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:
DANIEL J. MOORE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Laszynski & Moore Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIAM A. PARKS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 79A04-1305-CR-259
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Judge
Cause No. 79D01-1209-FA-14
May 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge
William A. Parks appeals his sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a class
A felony. Parks 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
On September 15, 2012, Parks, Amanda Gentry, and David Reeve went to Reeve’s
apartment. Parks told Gentry that he was going to try to cook methamphetamine. Gentry
noticed a very strong chemical odor in Reeve’s apartment. During the manufacturing
process, Reeve knocked over the vessel in which the methamphetamine was being made.
The odor became very intense after the contents of the vessel were spilled, and someone
opened the windows and door.
That same day, Lafayette Police Officers Kurt Sinks and Scott Clark were
dispatched to the scene following a report of a possible methamphetamine lab. Officer
Sinks approached the residence, noticed that a window was open, and detected a strong
odor when he was about ten feet from the entry way. The odor smelled like nail polish
remover and became even stronger as he walked closer to the doorway to the point where
his eyes began to water. Officer Clark’s eyes became “very red” and “watery” due to the
smell that was “very strong.” Transcript at 59.
Officer Sinks observed Gentry and Jeffrey Deaton in the residence. Gentry invited
Officer Sinks inside, but Officer Sinks declined because he was concerned for his health
due to the odor. Officer Sinks asked Gentry and Deaton to come outside, and they
complied. After speaking with Gentry, Officer Sinks called for the other person to exit
2
the house. Parks then exited the residence and was “very, very sweaty,” “very agitated,”
and nervous. Id. at 42. Officer Sinks explained to Parks why he was present, and Parks
told Officer Sinks that there was no validity to the complaint, that there was no meth lab
inside, that there were no drugs inside, and that there were no safety concerns for law
enforcement or anyone else.
The police obtained a search warrant and discovered lithium batteries, gallon jugs,
an organic solvent, a siphon type tool, coffee filters, and a smoking device. That same
day, Indiana State Police Trooper Brock Russell was called to the scene for a possible
methamphetamine lab. Based on what he found and his observations of the residence,
Trooper Russell concluded that someone had manufactured methamphetamine using the
one pot method. On September 15, 2012, Lafayette Police Detective Chad Robinson
advised Parks of his Miranda rights, and Parks waived them. Parks was cooperative and
admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine.
On September 20, 2012, the State charged Parks with Count I, conspiracy to
commit dealing in methamphetamine as a class A felony; Count II, dealing in
methamphetamine as a class A felony; Count III, possession of drug precursors as a class
C felony; Count IV, possession of methamphetamine as a class B felony; and Count V,
possession of a syringe as a class D felony.
At trial, Trooper Russell testified that the danger associated with the one pot
method would be possible fire or explosion. The jury indicated that they were not able to
reach a decision on Count V, possession of a syringe as a class D felony. The State
3
moved to dismiss Count V, and the court granted the motion. The jury then returned to
deliberate and found Parks guilty of the remaining counts.
At the sentencing hearing, Parks apologized to the community and to his friends
and family. Parks stated: “My drug addiction has caused all this and I’m sorry.” Id. at
325. The court merged Counts I, III, and IV into Count II. The court found Parks’s
extensive criminal history, prior failed attempts at rehabilitation, and substance abuse
history as aggravators. The court found Parks’s family support, cooperation with law
enforcement, and the fact that he has the emotional support of his children as mitigators.
The court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. The court
sentenced Parks to forty years for Count II, dealing in methamphetamine as a class A
felony, and ordered that twenty-six years be executed at the Department of Correction,
four years be executed through the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and ten
years of the sentence be suspended to probation.
DISCUSSION
The issue is whether Parks’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).
4
Parks argues that his manufacturing was minimal in terms of scope, duration, and
product. Parks also asserts that his meth production was consistent with supporting a
habit rather than a dealing or manufacturing operation. Parks argues that he was not
responsible for the location where the methamphetamine was made because it was not his
residence. Parks contends that the nature of the offense compelled a sentence at or close
to the statutory minimum for a class A felony. Parks concedes that he has a substantial
criminal history, but argues that this history overlapped with his substance abuse issues.
Parks also points out that he cooperated with law enforcement, apologized to the court
and community, and is a loving father and son.
The State argues that the manufacturing process is dangerous and that Parks
admitted that he manufactured methamphetamine in a residential area where young
children lived. The State also points to Parks’s criminal history, his failure to seek
treatment on his own, and his failure to pay child support.
Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Parks manufactured
methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex. Officer Sinks detected
a strong odor when he was about ten feet from the entry way. The odor smelled like nail
polish remover and became even stronger as he walked closer to the doorway to the point
where his eyes began to water. Officer Clark’s eyes became “very red” and “watery” due
to the smell that was “very strong.” Transcript at 59. Trooper Russell testified that the
danger associated with the one pot method would be possible fire or explosion. In his
interview with Detective Robinson, Parks explained his involvement in manufacturing
5
methamphetamine and told Detective Robinson that someone ditched him with the
mixture after it had been activated. The following exchange then occurred:
[Parks]: Um I guess it was a carrier or whatever but um I ended up
stashing it for Dave because he really didn’t get much out of
it because nothing fell and I went out and stayed at my
brother’s last night.
[Detective Robinson]: Where’d you stash it?
[Parks]: I actually took it out to my brother’s and stashed it in his shed
without him knowing because if he f------ knew, he flipped.
He’s got his kids there.
State’s Exhibit 72B at 3.
Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Parks cooperated with the
police after initially telling Officer Sinks that there was no validity to the complaint, that
there was no meth lab inside, that there were no drugs inside, and that there were no
safety concerns for law enforcement or anyone else. As a juvenile, Parks was adjudicated
a delinquent for offenses that if committed by an adult would constitute criminal deviate
conduct as a class B felony and receiving stolen property as a class D felony in 1996,
“[d]ealing in a Look-a-like substance” as a class C felony in 1997, theft in 1999, theft and
possession of marijuana in 2000. As an adult, Parks was convicted of operating while
intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor in 2003, battery as a class D felony in 2008, and
possession of chemical reagents or precursors as a class D felony in 2010. Parks had two
petitions to revoke probation filed against him with one being found true.
The PSI reveals that Parks reported first consuming alcohol at thirteen years old
and has used marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, suboxone, morphine,
klonopin, Lortab, and Norco. As a juvenile, Parks was ordered to complete counseling,
6
the FACT program, and an alcohol and drug education program. As an adult, Parks was
ordered to complete an alcohol and drug counseling program in 2003 which he
completed. Parks reported participating in counseling at Wabash Valley Hospital
between the ages of twelve and thirteen, at The Counseling Center between the ages of
ten and fifteen, and at St. Vincent’s Stress Center from 2006 to 2008 and from June 2012
until his arrest for the instant offenses.
The PSI indicates that the results of Parks’s risk assessment show that his overall
risk assessment score puts him in the high risk to reoffend category. Parks has three
children who are in relative care. Parks reported being current in his child support at the
time of his arrest. The presentence investigation report for Parks’s 2010 conviction
indicates that Parks reported at that time that he was $7,000 in arrears in child support.
The probation officer recommended a sentence of forty years with thirty years executed
and the final four years at a level to be determined by community corrections and ten
years suspended on probation with the final five years to be unsupervised. After due
consideration, we cannot say that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Parks’s sentence.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
7