Steven T. Lakes v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

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 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
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
FILED
Dec 11 2012, 9:18 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
STEVEN T. LAKES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A01-1204-CR-186
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge
Cause No. 15D01-1109-FD-402
December 11, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Steven T. Lakes appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to
operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) with a passenger less than eighteen years
of age1 as a Class D felony, operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator (“HTV”),2 a
Class D felony, and being an habitual substance offender.3 On appeal, Lakes raises one
issue, which we 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 1, 2011, the State charged Lakes with operating a vehicle with a
blood alcohol content (“BAC”) of 0.08 or higher as a Class C misdemeanor, OWI
endangering a person as a Class A misdemeanor, OWI with a passenger less than
eighteen years of age as a Class D felony, and operating a vehicle as an HTV as a Class D
felony. The State also filed an information alleging Lakes was an habitual substance
offender. On March 29, 2012, Lakes entered a plea of guilty to the two Class D
felonies—OWI with a passenger less than eighteen and operating a vehicle as an HTV.
Lakes also admitted that he was an habitual substance offender. In exchange for the plea,
the trial court dismissed the two misdemeanor counts.
Lakes was sentenced to a three-year sentence for each of his Class D felony
convictions for OWI and operating a vehicle as an HTV, which were ordered to be served
1
See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a)(2).
2
See Ind. Code § 9-30-10-16.
3
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(b).
2
concurrently. The trial court granted Lakes 422 days of credit time and ordered him to
serve the remaining 673 days on probation. The trial court then enhanced Lakes’s
sentence by three years for the habitual substance offender enhancement, which caused
Lakes’s executed sentence to be three years. Lakes now appeals. Additional facts will be
added where necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Lakes contends that his sentence is inappropriate. “This court has authority to
revise a sentence ‘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.’” Spitler v. State, 908 N.E.2d 694, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Ind.
Appellate Rule 7(B)), trans. denied. “Although Indiana Appellate 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.” Patterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1058, 1062-63
(Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007)). We understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. at 1063. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this
court that his sentence is inappropriate. Id.
Lakes argues that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. As to the nature of the offense, Lakes admits
that “he drank beer and drove on a suspended license with a fifteen-year-old in the car.”
Appellant’s Br. at 6-7. This activity, however, came about because “[s]ince he was a
child, Lakes was taught drinking and partying were a normal, even commendable, part of
3
life.” Id. at 7. Lakes shares these details to explain that he did not maliciously set out to
hurt anyone, “he just did on this day what had unfortunately been normal for him.” Id.
Regardless of how normal this activity seemed to Lakes, he has been convicted of similar
crimes numerous times in the past and knew his actions were illegal. On the day in
question, Lakes committed several criminal acts simultaneously that endangered him, the
fifteen-year-old son of his fiancée, and everyone else travelling on the roads on which he
drove. Lakes drove while his license was suspended for operating a vehicle as an HTV,
and he drove with a BAC of 0.12—an amount well over the legal limit. Tr. at 6.
Furthermore, while committing these crimes, Lakes had his fiancée’s fifteen-year-old son
in his vehicle as a passenger, id. at 5, and, when stopped, he had an open, half-empty,
forty-ounce container of beer in his car. Id. at 19.
Lakes contends that the most compelling reason for a sentence reduction is his
character. He asserts that he has remained accountable and willing to accept the
consequences for his illegal behavior, as is shown by his guilty plea. Lakes maintains
that, at the time of his sentencing, he had been participating in an intensive home
detention program for about six months. Additionally, he had submitted to and passed
weekly drug/alcohol screenings and met regularly with a counselor. While we commend
Lakes for his efforts to confront his alcohol issues, and urge him to continue on this path,
we cannot ignore Lakes’s criminal history. At the time of sentencing, Lakes had an
extensive criminal history, including twenty-eight convictions, two juvenile
adjudications, and five probation violations. Appellant’s Br. at 58-63. The trial court
noted, “This is the fifth DUI conviction.” Tr. at 51.
4
The trial court imposed two, concurrent, three-year sentences in connection with
Lakes’s convictions for OWI and for operating a vehicle as an HTV. Of that time, Lakes
was given credit for time served and ordered to serve the remaining 673 days on
probation. The trial court also imposed a three-year sentence on its finding that Lakes
was an habitual substance offender; this was the minimum sentence available to the trial
court on this count. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(f). We cannot say that a three-year executed
sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Lakes’s character.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and MAY, J., concur.
5