Derrick Anthony Edwards v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited
before any court except for the purpose Mar 17 2014, 8:57 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
THOMAS W. VANES GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DERRICK ANTHONY EDWARDS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 45A04-1308-CR-414
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 45G04-1011-FB-118
March 17, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Derrick Edwards appeals his twelve-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in a
narcotic drug. We affirm.
Issue
Edwards raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
On September 18, 2009, Edwards met a confidential informant, drove to a housing
project, and sold the confidential informant .5 grams of heroin for $200. The State later
charged Edwards with five counts of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug or dealing
in cocaine for various transactions involving the same confidential informant during the
fall of 2009, including the September 18, 2009 transaction. Pursuant to the terms of a
plea agreement, Edwards pled guilty to one count of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic
drug, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Edwards
to twelve years in the Department of Correction. Edwards now appeals.
Analysis
Edwards argues that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B) permits us to 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. Although Rule 7(B) does not
require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still
must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873
2
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden
of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “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.” Id. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on 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. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B),
we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended.
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
Regarding the nature of the offense, we tend to agree with Edwards’s argument
that the nature of the offense is not particularly egregious. Nevertheless, as Edwards
points out, he was alleged to have committed similar offenses on four other occasions,
and those charges were dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. Thus, this
was not an isolated incident of misconduct.
As for Edwards’s character, although he has extensive health problems, there is no
indication that those health problems are related to the commission of the offense.
3
Moreover, fifty-seven-year-old Edwards has an extensive criminal history spanning
several decades. He has five felony convictions, one misdemeanor conviction, and two
juvenile adjudications. Edwards has been arrested on numerous other occasions, and his
drug history includes heroin use, showing his disregard for the law. Under these
circumstances, we cannot conclude that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
Edwards has not established that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.
Affirmed.
ROBB, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
4