Luis H. Jaquez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 17 2020, 10:26 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Peter D. Todd Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Luis H. Jaquez, January 17, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1324
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Christofeno, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-1611-F2-23
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1324 | January 17, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In August of 2016, a confidential informant purchased over 140 grams of
methamphetamine from Luis H. Jaquez. Jaquez was subsequently charged
with and convicted of two counts of Level 2 felony dealing in
methamphetamine and one count of Level 5 felony corrupt business influence.
The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate thirty-six-year sentence. Jaquez
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Because
we conclude otherwise, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August 2016, local, state, and federal law enforcement officers worked with
confidential informant CS6891 on drug interdiction cases. CS6891 completed
numerous controlled buys, two of which involved Jaquez. On each occasion,
law enforcement officers searched CS6891 both prior to and after the controlled
buys, fitted him with a recording/transmitting device prior to the controlled
buys, and provided him with necessary funds to complete the controlled buys.
On two separate occasions, Jaquez agreed to sell CS6891 methamphetamine.
During the first controlled buy, Jaquez sold CS6891 approximately twenty-eight
grams of methamphetamine in exchange for $800. In the second, Jaquez sold
CS6891 approximately 114 grams of methamphetamine in exchange for $3200.
[3] On November 8, 2016, Jaquez was charged with two counts of Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine and one count of Level 5 felony corrupt business
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1324 | January 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5
influence. Following trial, a jury found Jaquez guilty as charged. The trial
court sentenced Jaquez to an aggregate thirty-six-year sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Jaquez contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him.
Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are
reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), modified on other grounds on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218(Ind. 2007). “An abuse of discretion occurs if 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.(quotation omitted).
We review for an abuse of discretion the court’s finding of
aggravators and mitigators to justify a sentence, but we cannot
review the relative weight assigned to those factors. When
reviewing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
identified by the trial court in its sentencing statement, we will
remand only if the record does not support the reasons, or the
sentencing statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by
the record, and advanced for consideration, or the reasons given
are improper as a matter of law.… A single aggravating
circumstance may be sufficient to enhance a sentence. When a
trial court improperly applies an aggravator but other valid
aggravating circumstances exist, a sentence enhancement may
still be upheld. The question we must decide is whether we are
confident the trial court would have imposed the same sentence
even if it had not found the improper aggravator.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1324 | January 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5
Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411, 416–17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal
citations and quotations omitted).
[5] In challenging his sentence, Jaquez contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in finding that he has not accepted responsibility for his actions to be
an aggravating factor. Jaquez argues that this factor indicates that “the court
relied on Jaquez’s assertion of his right to trial and his right to remain silent as a
reason to give a man who had no prior criminal history the maximum possible
sentence.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. In support, Jaquez relies on our prior
conclusion that “[t]o hold that the denial of guilt is an aggravating factor, in
light of the right of a defendant to maintain his innocence through sentencing,
and in the knowledge that the defendant is going to appeal upon the sufficiency
of the evidence to sustain the conviction, would be unfair to the defendant.”
Kien v. State, 782 N.E.2d 398, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. We agree
that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Jaquez’s failure to take
responsibility for his actions to be an aggravating factor. However, given the
other aggravating factors relied on by the trial court, we cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion in sentencing Jaquez.
[6] Again, when a trial court improperly applies an aggravating factor but other
valid aggravating factors exist, an enhanced sentence may be upheld if the
reviewing court is confident the trial court would have imposed the same
sentence if it did not consider the improper aggravator. See Baumholser, 62
N.E.3d at 417. We are confident that in this case the trial court would have
imposed the same sentence even if it had not considered the challenged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1324 | January 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5
aggravating factor. In addition to the challenged aggravating factor, the trial
court also found the following to be significant aggravating factors: (1) Jaquez
delivered an amount of methamphetamine which was much greater than the
statutory amount required for the level of the felony charged; (2) he was a major
drug dealer who moved a major amount of methamphetamine in Elkhart
County; and (3) he subjected the community to a level of harm, injury, or
danger much greater than the level considered by the legislature. The trial court
explicitly stated that any one of these factors would support an enhanced
sentence. The trial court’s statement convinces us that the trial court would
have imposed the same sentence had it not considered Jaquez’s alleged failure
to accept responsibility for his actions. We therefore conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jaquez.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1324 | January 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5