Shane A. Halsema v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 22 2020, 5:37 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy P. Broden Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief Criminal
Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shane A. Halsema, January 22, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1673
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-1901-F3-5
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Shane A. Halsema appeals the seven-year aggregate sentence that was imposed
following his guilty pleas to battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and
residential entry, both Level 6 felonies, and to being an habitual offender.
Halsema argues that the trial court erred in identifying the lack of responsibility
for the offenses and the use of a weapon as aggravating factors.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On January 20, 2019, Lafayette Police Department officers were dispatched to
an apartment regarding a possible domestic disturbance. As the officers entered
the residence, they observed Halsema climbing out of a window.
[4] Officer K.M. Cooney detained Halsema and spoke with Vivian King, who was
also present and bleeding from her head. King told Officer Cooney that she
was temporarily living at the apartment that her cousin had rented. King
explained that her cousin was incarcerated, so she invited a friend, Shelly
Iverson, to stay with her so she would not be alone in the apartment.
[5] King told the officers that she was asleep when Halsema entered the apartment
without permission. Halsema struck King on the head with a club after she had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 2 of 6
ordered him to leave. Iverson had witnessed the incident and provided a
corroborating statement to the officers.
[6] Halsema was arrested and charged with Count I, burglary resulting in bodily
injury, a Level 3 felony, Count II, battery by means of a deadly weapon, a
Level 5 felony, Count III, battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, a Level 6
felony, Count IV, residential entry, a Level 6 felony, and Count V, being an
habitual offender.
[7] On March 22, 2019, Halsema pled guilty to Counts III and IV, and he admitted
to being an habitual offender. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the
remaining charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court specifically
identified Halsema’s extensive criminal history, his lengthy history of substance
abuse, previous failed attempts at rehabilitation, several probation violations,
and the failure to take responsibility for the instant offenses, as aggravating
circumstances. The trial court determined that Halsema’s decision to plead
guilty was the sole mitigating circumstance. After determining that the
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstance, the trial court
sentenced Halsema to two years each on Counts III and IV to run consecutively
with each other. The trial court then enhanced the sentence by three years on
the habitual offender finding, thus ordering Halsema to serve an aggregate
executed term of seven years. He now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[8] Halsema contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him
because it improperly identified his failure to take responsibility for the offenses
and the use of a weapon in committing the offenses as aggravating factors.
Sentencing decisions are within the authority of the trial court and are only
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 811 N.E.2d 462, 464-65
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Indiana trial courts are required to enter sentencing
statements whenever imposing sentence for a felony offense. Anglemyer v. State,
868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. If the
sentencing order includes a finding of aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
the statement must explain why each factor has been determined to be
mitigating or aggravating. Id.
[9] Additionally, while a trial court may not consider a defendant’s choice to
maintain his innocence as an aggravating factor, it may properly identify the
defendant’s lack of remorse or failure to take responsibility as an aggravating
circumstance. Salone v. State, 652 N.E.2d 552, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.
denied. A guilty plea may be a mitigating circumstance when the State reaps a
benefit in saving time and expense of proceeding to trial and in instances where
a victim is spared the pain of testifying at trial. Jackson v. State, 973 N.E.2d
1123, 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. A guilty plea, however, does not
foreclose a finding of the defendant’s failure to take responsibility as an
aggravating factor. Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 220-21. While the trial court
must assess the potential mitigating weight of a guilty plea, the significance of a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 4 of 6
guilty plea as a mitigating factor varies from case to case. Id. For instance, a
guilty plea may not be significantly mitigating when it does not demonstrate the
defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. Id. at 221. Finally, the sentencing
court may give weight to facts that are related to charges that have been
dismissed unless the plea agreement prohibits the court from doing so as a
condition of the plea. Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125, 1132 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013).
[10] Halsema testified at the sentencing hearing that he saw five individuals fighting
when he entered the apartment, and he “put [himself] into the fight . . . to try to
break [it up].” Confidential Appendix Vol. II at 21. Halsema also claimed that
“he was the one who got charged, nobody else got charged.” Transcript Vol. II
at 41. Although Halsema asserted these claims at sentencing, at no time did he
allege to the police officers that anyone else was at the scene, other than Iverson
and King. Moreover, neither of the women indicated that others were present
when the incident occurred, and the police officers did not see anyone else at
the residence. Also, while Halsema testified at the sentencing hearing that he
cooperated and remained at the scene, he was attempting to flee through a
window when the officers entered the apartment.
[11] Under these circumstances, it is apparent that while Halsema expected to reap
the benefits of a plea agreement, his self-serving testimony at the sentencing
hearing was an attempt to mitigate his involvement in the crimes and avoid
responsibility. Hence, the trial court did not err in considering Halsema’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 5 of 6
failure to take responsibility for the offenses as an aggravating factor when
imposing the sentence. See Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 220-21.
[12] We also reject Halsema’s contention that the sentencing court improperly
identified and considered the use of a weapon in the commission of the offenses
as an aggravating factor. In fact, the sentencing court commented that it would
not make “a determination that a weapon was involved because that’s not been
litigated. . . .” Transcript Vol. II at 67-68. But it also noted that “there were
some significant injuries borne in the context of the battery that the court can
consider.” Id. Indeed, several photographs admitted at the sentencing hearing
showed a three-inch gash on King’s head. The trial court could properly
consider these photos at sentencing, as there was nothing in the plea agreement
that prohibited it from doing so. See Guzman, 985 N.E.2d at 1132 (observing
that the trial court need not “turn a blind eye” to the facts of an incident that
brought the defendant before it, unless the plea bargain precludes it “from using
enhancements from underlying charges that were dismissed or from the original
charges from which a lesser included plea is taken”). Here, no such limiting
language was included in Halsema’s plea agreement. Thus, Halsema’s claims
fail, and we conclude that the trial acted within its discretion in sentencing him.
[13] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1673 | January 22, 2020 Page 6 of 6