Timothy M. Snapp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 17 2018, 9:50 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Tonja V. Kinder Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Timothy M. Snapp, August 17, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-604
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc R. Kellams,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
53C05-1709-F5-912
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] On January 3, 2018, Timothy Snapp pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in
methamphetamine. Consistent with the terms of Snapp’s guilty plea, the trial
court sentenced Snapp to a five-year term of imprisonment. Snapp contends
that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] While conducting surveillance for an on-going narcotics investigation on
August 30, 2017, Bloomington police officers observed Snapp walk out of an
apartment and hand something in a clear plastic bag to Tina Hunter. The
police observed that Snapp then traveled with Hunter to an apartment located
on West Dodds Street. Snapp was arrested after police executed a search
warrant on the West Dodds Street apartment and found methamphetamine.
Hunter subsequently informed the officers that she had obtained
methamphetamine from Snapp earlier that evening and that any
methamphetamine found in the apartment would have come from Snapp.
[3] On September 1, 2017, the State charged Snapp with Level 5 felony dealing in
methamphetamine. Snapp pled guilty on January 3, 2018. In exchange for
Snapp’s guilty plea, the State agreed that (1) Snapp’s sentence would be capped
at five years, (2) it would not seek an enhancement in the level of felony charge,
and (3) it would move to dismiss a charge in an unrelated cause number. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5
trial court accepted Snapp’s guilty plea and, on February 26, 2018, sentenced
Snapp to a five-year term of incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Snapp contends that his five-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B) provides that “The Court 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate less on comparing
the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more
on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the
defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s
character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting
Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). 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).
[5] In challenging his sentence, Snapp argues that his maximum five-year sentence
is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense. We note that while the
five-year sentence was the maximum permissible sentence under the terms of
his plea agreement, it is not the maximum sentence that Snapp could have
received had he gone to trial. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (providing that the
statutory range for a sentence for a Level 5 felony is between one year and six
years). Snapp also attempts to downplay the seriousness of his offense by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5
arguing that his offense was not as serious as some of the other offenses that are
classified as Level 5 felonies. Regardless of what other crimes might be
classified as Level 5 felonies, the General Assembly has determined that dealing
in methamphetamine is a serious offense warranting Level 5 felony
classification. Further, the record shows that Snapp has long engaged in drug
possession and dealing.
[6] As for Snapp’s character, since 1979, he has amassed a significant criminal
history, which includes at least fifteen criminal convictions and numerous other
arrests. Although Snapp’s record of arrests by itself is not evidence of his
criminal history, “it is appropriate to consider such a record as a poor reflection
on [Snapp’s] character, because it may reveal that he … has not been deterred
even after having been subjected to the police authority of the State.” Rutherford
v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Cotto v. State, 829
N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. 2005)). Snapp has also committed prior probation
violations.
[7] The instant conviction is Snapp’s fifth felony conviction for either possessing or
selling methamphetamine since 2011. An additional charge of possession of
methamphetamine was dismissed pursuant to the terms of Snapp’s plea
agreement in this case. Many of Snapp’s other arrests and convictions stem
from either drug possession or dealing. In addition, Snapp was found to be a
high risk to reoffend.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5
[8] Snapp argues that it reflects well on his character that he has recently
committed to reforming his behavior. Snapp points to the fact that he had been
accepted for inpatient treatment at the Amethyst House following his release
from incarceration and his willingness to admit that he had been battling
substance-abuse issues. Snapp also points to the fact that he continues to
maintain positive relationships with past employers and has eagerly participated
in multiple educational opportunities while incarcerated. While we applaud
Snapp’s commitment to improving himself, this somewhat recent commitment
to self-improvement does not outweigh Snapp’s extensive pattern of criminal
behavior. Snapp has failed to convince us that his five-year sentence is
inappropriate.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5