Richard M. Ford v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
Feb 08 2012, 10:00 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DERICK W. STEELE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Kokomo, Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RICHARD M. FORD, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 34A02-1107-CR-671
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge
Cause No. 34C01-1003-FC-52
February 8, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Richard M. Ford pleaded guilty to domestic battery1 as a Class D felony and was
sentenced to three years executed. He appeals, raising the following restated issue:
whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 25, 2010, in Howard County, Indiana, Ford knowingly or intentionally
touched Ashley Skoczylas in a rude, insolent, or angry manner by striking her several
times in the face and caused her bodily injury. Her injuries included a large cut to her
nose and swelling around her eyes. Skoczylas has two children with Ford. Ford struck
Skoczylas in the presence of three children, a one-year-old, a three-month-old, and a one-
month-old.
The State charged Ford with domestic battery as a Class D felony and robbery as a
Class C felony. On May 10, 2011, the day of his jury trial, Ford pleaded guilty to
domestic battery as a Class D felony pursuant to an open sentence plea agreement. The
State dismissed the robbery charge. On June 8, 2011, the trial court sentenced Ford to an
executed term of three years in the Department of Correction. Ford now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
“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,
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3.
2
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.
Ford argues that his three-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender. He specifically contends that the nature of
the offense shows that it was not the most heinous Class D felony. Ford also claims that,
as to his character, he has children who are dependent upon his presence and support, he
expressed remorse for his actions, and he is not “the worst of the worst.” Appellant’s Br.
at 4. He therefore asserts that his maximum executed sentence is inappropriate.
As to the nature of the offense, Ford struck Skoczylas, the mother of his one-year-
old and three-month-old sons, multiple times in the face. As a result of this, Skoczylas
sustained a large cut on her nose, bleeding from her nostrils, and swelling around her
eyes. Further, Ford committed this crime in the presence of three of his young children.
As to Ford‟s character, he has an extensive criminal history, which includes
multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions, consisting of fifteen prior misdemeanor
convictions and five prior felony convictions. The present offense represents Ford‟s sixth
battery conviction and second felony battery conviction. Ford‟s criminal history also
shows that he has multiple instances of non-compliance with home detention, probation,
3
or community service. Further, Ford was both out on bond for a pending case and on
probation for another case at the time he committed the present offense. Based on the
above, we conclude that Ford‟s three-year executed sentence is not inappropriate in light
of the nature of the offense and character of the offender.
Affirmed.
BARNES, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
4