Jeremy Riffert 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, 10:37 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:
LEANNA WEISSMANN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHAEL GENE WORDEN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEREMY RIFFERT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A01-1310-CR-460
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship, Judge
Cause No. 15D02-1207-FD-396
May 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
CASE SUMMARY
On July 16, 2012, Appellant-Defendant Jeremy Riffert operated a motor vehicle while
his driving privileges were suspended due to his status as a habitual traffic violator (“HTV”).
On July 17, 2012, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Riffert with
Class D felony operating a vehicle as a HTV. On August 2, 2013, Riffert pled guilty to Class
D felony operation a vehicle as a HTV. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court
sentenced Riffert to a term of 800 days to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction
(“DOC”). On appeal, Riffert contends that his 800-day sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The factual basis entered during the June 21, 2013 guilty plea hearing provides that on
July 16, 2012, Riffert operated a motor vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended
due to his status as a HTV. On July 17, 2012, the State charged Riffert with Class D felony
operating a vehicle as a HTV. The State also charged Riffert with Class A misdemeanor
invasion of privacy, alleging that Riffert occupied a vehicle with a protected person in
violation of a valid protective order. On August 2, 2013, Riffert pled guilty to Class D felony
operation a vehicle as a HTV. In exchange for Riffert’s plea, the State agreed to dismiss the
invasion of privacy charge. The trial court accepted Riffert’s plea and entered a judgment of
conviction on the Class D felony operating a vehicle as a HTV charge. Following a
sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Riffert to a term of 800 days to be served in the
DOC. This appeal follows.
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Riffert contends that his 800-day sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a
sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the
Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence
is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
With respect to the nature of Riffert’s offense, the record demonstrates that Riffert
knowingly operated a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended. With regard to
his character, the record demonstrates that Riffert’s criminal history includes a felony
conviction for theft and numerous felony convictions for possession of marijuana. Riffert’s
criminal history also includes misdemeanor convictions for operating a vehicle while
intoxicated endangering a person and possession of marijuana, as well as numerous
misdemeanor convictions for driving while suspended. Riffert’s criminal history further
indicates that Riffert has violated the terms of his probation on numerous occasions. Riffert
has previously been incarcerated, yet has failed to modify his behavior and live a law-abiding
life. Riffert’s criminal history, coupled with his failure to reform his unlawful behavior,
reflects poorly on his character.
Moreover, while Riffert accepted responsibility for his actions and pled guilty, we
observe that he received a benefit, i.e., the dismissal of an additional charge, in exchange for
his guilty plea. As such, we believe that Riffert’s decision to plead guilty more accurately
3
represents a tactical decision than an indicator of positive character.
In arguing that his 800-day sentence is inappropriate, Riffert acknowledges that his
sentence is less than the three-year maximum permitted under Indiana’s sentencing
guidelines, see Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7, but argues that an advisory sentence of one and one-
half years would be more appropriate.1 We note, however, that our standard of review on
appeal is not whether a different sentence would be more appropriate but rather whether that
imposed by the trial court was inappropriate. Here, taking the facts relating to the nature of
Riffert’s offense and his character into consideration, we conclude that Riffert has failed to
prove that his 800-day sentence is inappropriate.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RILEY, J., and ROBB, J., concur.
1
By our calculations, 800-days equals approximately two and two-tenths years.
4