Jesse W. Carfield 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 31 2020, 10:12 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Megan M. Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jesse W. Carfield, January 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2073
v. Appeal from the Dearborn
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. McLaughlin, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15D02-1904-F6-134
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Statement of the Case
[1] Jesse Carfield (“Carfield”) appeals the three-and-one-half-year aggregate
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry1 and
Class A misdemeanor operating while suspended with a prior unrelated
violation.2 He argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character
and the nature of his offenses. Concluding that the sentence is not
inappropriate, we affirm Carfield’s sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether Carfield’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of his offense and his character.
Facts
[1] In July 2019, Carfield pled guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry for breaking
and entering the Wyatt family’s home. He also pled guilty to Class A
misdemeanor operating while suspended with a prior unrelated violation. This
charge was based on Carfield’s operation of a vehicle while knowing that his
1
IND. CODE § 35-43-2-1.5.
2
IND. CODE § 9-24-19-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 7
driving privileges had been suspended or revoked less than ten years after
judgement was entered against him for a prior unrelated violation.
[2] At his sentencing hearing, Carfield explained his residential entry offense,
which he committed in the afternoon, to the trial court as follows:
When I was a young boy, my mom passed away of cancer and
she told me my father wasn’t our father so I was out there trying
to find out who my real family is; cause my family has really
nothing to do with me and they always called my Jesse Wyatt as
a kid. So, here I’m thinking out driving, I love singing music,
playing music, and I was out driving on Stamper Road one night
and I seen a mailbox that said Wyatt on it. It’s no excuse for me
even being there I just stopped there to check and see if it was a
family. I knocked on the doors, I was there the night before and
nobody (indiscernible) so I went back the next day to see who it
was and there was a blue turtle shell on their porch. I do art, I
draw real good, and it just caught my eye this little art sculpture,
this little blue turtle shell, I picked it up and their house keys were
under it. I just thought it was a house that was inherited to me
and so I (indiscernible) very, very apologized I walked into their
house.
(Tr. 11).
[3] Carl Wyatt (“Wyatt”), who works the third shift, testified that he had been
asleep the afternoon that Carfield entered his house. Wyatt’s wife had just
gotten out of the shower when she saw Carfield standing in the hallway. She
yelled to her husband, who grabbed his gun and ran into the hallway. He
repeatedly told Carfield to leave the house, but Carfield did not leave until
Wyatt threatened to shoot him. Carfield then walked outside and got into his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 7
car. However, instead of leaving, Carfield parked his car by the Wyatts’ barn in
an area that was hidden from both the road and neighbors.
[4] Carfield’s pre-sentence investigation report revealed that Carfield has an
extensive legal history that includes four felony convictions, including three for
theft. Carfield also has six misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for
driving while suspended and driving without a license. In addition, Carfield
has violated probation numerous times.
[5] When sentencing Carfield, the trial court noted that Carfield’s “explanation
that he went into the home because the last name on the mailbox was the
alleged name of his father, who he knew nothing about including, what his first
name was, [wa]s illogical.” (Tr. 31-32). The trial court also pointed out this
was Carfield’s “fourth conviction for Driving Without a License indicating that
[Carfield] w[ould] unlikely follow the law in not driving when suspended or no
license in the future.” (Tr. 32). In addition, the trial court noted that Carfield’s
“history of probation violations and home detention violations [was] such that
[Carfield] was unlikely to respond positively to probation or community
correction programs and that community safety [was] best protected in this case
through incarceration.” (Tr. 32).
[6] Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Carfield to two-and-one-half (2½) years for
the Level 6 felony residential entry conviction and one (1) year for the Class A
misdemeanor operating while suspended conviction. The trial court ordered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 7
the sentences to run consecutively to each other for a total executed sentence of
three-and-one-half (3½) years.
[7] Carfield now appeals his sentence.
Decision
[8] Carfield argues that his three-and-one-half-year sentence is inappropriate.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that
his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on the “culpability
of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and
myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).
[1] The Indiana Supreme Court has further explained that “[s]entencing is
principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should
receive considerable deference.” Id. at 1222. “Such deference 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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 7
[2] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is
the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. The sentencing range for a
Level 6 felony is six (6) months and two and one-half (2.5) years, and the
advisory sentence is one (1) year. IND. CODE § 35-50-2-7. The maximum
sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is one year. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. Here, the
trial court sentenced Carfield to the maximum sentence for each offense and
ordered the sentences to run consecutively to each other, for a total executed
sentence of three and one-half years.
[3] Regarding the nature of the offense, we note that Carfield entered the Wyatts’
home in the middle of the day when Wyatt was sleeping, and his wife was
getting out of the shower. Carfield refused to leave the Wyatts’ house until
Wyatt threatened to shoot him. When Carfield finally left the house, he did not
leave the property. Rather, he pulled his car into an area next to the Wyatts’
barn that was hidden from both the road and the neighbors.
[4] Regarding Carfield’s character, we note that Carfield has an extensive legal
history that includes four felony convictions, including three for theft. Carfield
also has six misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for driving while
suspended and driving without a license. Carfield has also violated probation
numerous times. Clearly, Carfield’s former contacts with the law have not
caused him to reform himself. See Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1086 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[5] Based on the nature of the offense and his character, Carfield has failed to meet
his burden to persuade this Court that his three-and-one-half-year sentence is
inappropriate.
[6] Affirmed.
May, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2073 |January 31, 2020 Page 7 of 7