Robert Lee Meschen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Feb 05 2019, 8:30 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal
Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Robert Lee Meschen, February 5, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1329
v. Appeal from the Parke Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Samuel A. Swaim,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
61C01-1609-F4-268
Barteau, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 1 of 12
Statement of the Case
[1] Robert Meschen appeals the sentence he received for multiple convictions of
both child exploitation and possession of child pornography. We affirm.
Issues
[2] Meschen presents three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate
as two:
I. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing Meschen.
II. Whether Meschen’s sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In September 2016, Meschen was charged with five counts of Level 4 felony
1
child exploitation and five counts of Level 5 felony possession of child
2
pornography. Subsequently, Meschen filed a motion for competency
evaluation. The trial court granted the motion and appointed two doctors to
evaluate Meschen. A competency hearing was held in April 2017, at which the
trial court found Meschen to be incompetent. The court ordered Meschen
committed to the state division of mental health and addiction for competency
restorative services. In November, following treatment at Logansport State
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4 (2016).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 2 of 12
Hospital, Meschen attained his competency. He was returned to jail for
disposition of these charges, and, pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded
guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) to all ten charges in January 2018. The
agreement provided for an aggregate sentence of 5,475 days (i.e., fifteen years)
and left to the judge’s discretion how the sentence would be served and how
much, if any, of the sentence would be suspended. It was agreed that both
parties could present evidence and make recommendations to the trial court.
[4] Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Meschen
to concurrent terms of 2,190 days (i.e., six years) on each of the first four counts
of child exploitation, with an additional 2,190 days on the fifth count to be
served consecutively thereto. In addition, he was ordered to serve 1,095 days
(i.e., three years) on each of the five counts of possession of child pornography,
to be served concurrently to one another and consecutively to the fifth count of
child exploitation, for a total aggregate sentence of 5,475 days. The court then
exercised its discretion under the agreement to order that the first 4,380 days
(i.e., twelve years) of the sentence be executed, with the balance suspended to
probation. Meschen now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
I. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion
A. Failure to Suspend Sentence
[5] Meschen first contends the trial court erred by suspending only three years of
his fifteen-year sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 3 of 12
[6] Pursuant to his plea agreement, which was accepted by the trial court, Meschen
agreed to an aggregate fifteen-year sentence and to leaving to the court’s
discretion the portion of the sentence to be suspended, if any. “It is within the
trial court’s discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement and the sentencing
provisions therein.” Bennett v. State, 802 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. 2004). “A plea
agreement is contractual in nature, binding the defendant, the State, and the
trial court.” Vaughn v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1071, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Accordingly, once the court accepts an agreement, it is strictly bound by the
agreement’s provisions, including those concerning sentencing. Bennett, 802
N.E.2d at 921-22.
[7] Here, at sentencing the trial court found three mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances. It also determined that Meschen had “received a
substantial benefit from the plea agreement already,” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 72, referring
to the fact that the sentences for the five counts of child exploitation could have
all been ordered to be served consecutively to each other because they are
crimes of violence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(a)(16) (2016). Meschen argues
the trial court improperly considered this a benefit that offset the mitigating
effect of the three mitigating circumstances, thus causing the court to order only
three years of his fifteen-year sentence suspended.
[8] A decision not to suspend a sentence is reviewable only for an abuse of
discretion. Turner v. State, 878 N.E.2d 286, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans.
denied. “The suspension of a sentence is a matter of grace and a judicial favor to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 4 of 12
a defendant. In other words, a suspended sentence is not something to which a
defendant has a right or an entitlement.” Id.[9] Thus, the trial court would have acted well within its discretion if it had ordered
Meschen to serve the entire fifteen-year sentence. Instead, the trial court
showed leniency by suspending three years of the sentence. Even if the trial
court considered improper circumstances, Meschen was not entitled to have
any portion of his sentence suspended. In determining Meschen’s sentence, the
court stated, “obviously the crimes are pretty horrendous and there’s gonna
have to be some accountability there,” and it characterized the twelve-year
sentence as “a fair sentence given everything combined here.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 73.
[10] Additionally, although acknowledging that the trial court found his mental
illness to be a mitigating circumstance when determining what portion, if any,
of his sentence to suspend, Meschen alleges the court erred because its
consideration of his mental illness was “minimal” and it did not indicate what
mitigating weight it accorded his illness.
[11] Our Supreme Court has stated that “a GBMI defendant is not automatically
entitled to any particular credit or deduction from his otherwise aggravated
sentence simply by virtue of being mentally ill.” Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28,
30 (Ind. 1998). Trial courts should consider what mitigating weight, if any, to
accord a defendant’s mental illness, but the court has no obligation to give the
defendant’s illness the same weight as does the defendant. Id. Moreover, the
relative weight or value assignable to mitigating circumstances found by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 5 of 12
trial court is not subject to review for abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
[12] The trial court found Meschen’s mental illness to be a mitigating factor. To the
extent that he claims the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give this
mitigating factor greater weight, this claim is not available for appellate review.
See id. While recognizing Meschen’s three proffered mitigators, including his
mental illness, the trial court determined that the circumstances in this case did
not warrant suspension of more than three years of his aggregate sentence. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion.
B. Imposition of Probation User Fees
[13] Meschen next asserts that the trial court erred in ordering probation fees that
exceed the statutory maximum.
[14] Sentencing decisions include decisions to impose fees and costs, and we review
these decisions for an abuse of discretion. Coleman v. State, 61 N.E.3d 390, 392
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or
the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. “If
the fees imposed by the trial court fall within the parameters provided by
statute, we will not find an abuse of discretion.” Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d 798,
799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[15] The court ordered Meschen to pay an initial probation user’s fee of $100 for
each of his ten convictions for a total of $1,000. Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 6 of 12
137. Meschen argues this amount is improper, alleging the statute only permits
a maximum of $100 in initial probation user’s fees.
[16] Indiana Code section 35-38-2-1 (2012) governs conditions of probation.
Subsection (b) provides that if a person is convicted of a felony and placed on
probation, the trial court shall order the person to pay probation user’s fees as
prescribed in subsection (d) of the statute. Subsection (d), in turn, mandates
that the court shall order each person convicted of a felony to pay “not less than
twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100) as an initial
probation user’s fee.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(d)(1). Finally, subsection (i)
provides:
(i) A person placed on probation for more than one (1) crime:
(1) may be required to pay more than one (1) initial
probation user’s fee . . . .
[17] The fees imposed by the trial court fall within the parameters of the statute. We
find no abuse of discretion.
II. Inappropriate Sentence
[18] Meschen argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offenses and his character. He maintains that the trial court should have
suspended his fifteen-year sentence to time served, with the remainder to be
served on probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 7 of 12
[19] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a
sentence, article VII, sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize
independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014). However, “we must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s
sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due
consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v.
State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Such deference to the trial
court’s judgment should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence
portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by
restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as
substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character). Stephenson
v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Thus, the question under Appellate
Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the
question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894
N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The defendant bears the burden of
persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 8 of 12
[20] A plea agreement that does not provide for an open plea but nevertheless
affords the trial court some discretion in sentencing is subject to review under
Rule 7(B). Rivera v. State, 851 N.E.2d 299, 301-02 (Ind. 2006) (holding that
agreed ten-year sentence was subject to Rule 7(B) review because trial court had
exercised discretion in determining how much of sentence was suspended to
probation). Such is the case here where the plea agreement provides for a
fifteen-year sentence, and the trial court was to determine how much, if any, of
the sentence would be suspended. Thus, the only question for us on appeal is
whether the trial court’s order suspending three years is inappropriate.
[21] To assess whether a sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory
range established for the class of the offenses. Here, Meschen agreed to the
advisory sentence on all ten counts and to an aggregate sentence of fifteen
3
years.
[22] Next, we look to the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender.
As to the nature of the current offenses, we note that Meschen pleaded guilty
but mentally ill to five counts of child exploitation and five counts of possession
of child pornography. These offenses involved possessing and sharing images
of children under the age of twelve—including infants and toddlers, some in
bondage—being forced to engage in sexual conduct. Police obtained more than
3,565 files from Meschen’s computer, the majority of which contained child
3
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2014) (advisory sentence for Level 4 felony is six years); see also Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-6(b) (2014) (advisory sentence for Level 5 felony is three years).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 9 of 12
pornography. At his sentencing, a detective testified that he had “a pretty
significant collection” of child pornography and that “the content of his
collection [ ] was alarming.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 49. The trial court characterized
Meschen’s offenses as “horrendous,” id. at 73, and even Meschen himself
concedes that his offenses are “disturbing.” Appellant’s Br. p. 21.
[23] Yet, Meschen argues that because he was alleged to have only possessed and
shared the images and not alleged to have created the images, his “offenses
suggest, at most, concurrent, advisory sentences.” Id. However, Meschen’s
plea agreement specifically provided for certain consecutive terms. The
agreement called for concurrent, advisory terms on each of the first four counts
of child exploitation, with an advisory term on the fifth count to be served
consecutively thereto. In addition, the agreement provided for advisory terms
on each of the five counts of possession of child pornography, to be served
concurrently to one another and consecutively to his aggregate sentence on the
five counts of child exploitation, for a total aggregate sentence of fifteen years.
By accepting the plea agreement, Meschen agreed to a portion of his sentences
to be consecutive. The sole factor left to the court’s discretion was the portion
of his fifteen-year sentence, if any, that would be suspended. Thus, review of
the consecutive sentencing terms is not available for Meschen on appeal. See
Rivera, 851 N.E.2d at 301-02 (recognizing that trial court is bound by terms of
plea agreement and Rule 7(B) review is not available where court has imposed
term that is non-discretionary). Nothing about the nature of Meschen’s offenses
persuades us that his twelve-year executed sentence is inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 10 of 12
[24] With regard to the character of the offender, we observe that the trial court
considered Meschen’s lack of criminal history as a mitigating circumstance.
However, while it is true that Meschen has no formal criminal history, he has
not led a law-abiding life. Most notably, in telling detectives he was not certain
how long he had been downloading child pornography from the internet, he
referred to obtaining child pornography from a website that had been closed
down for approximately five years. Meschen also admitted frequent marijuana
use as well as use of other illegal drugs.
[25] In his brief, Meschen asserts that his character “supports great leniency in
sentencing.” Appellant’s Br. p. 21. He then provides a timeline of his
behaviors and diagnoses without providing any information to support his
contention beyond what the court had already determined. The court found
Meschen’s mental illness to be a mitigating factor, and, in light of Meschen’s
plea of guilty but mentally ill, he will be evaluated and treated for his mental
illness in the DOC. See Ind. Code § 35-36-2-5(c) (2015).
[26] Considering both the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender,
and giving due consideration to the trial court’s sentencing decision, we are
unable to conclude that Menschen’s twelve-year sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[27] For the reasons stated, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Meschen and that his sentence is not inappropriate
given the nature of the offenses and his character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 11 of 12
[28] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1329 | February 5, 2019 Page 12 of 12