Ragina C. Stittums v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Mar 06 2020, 10:57 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
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Brooklyn, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Sarah J. Shores
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ragina C. Stittums, March 6, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2372
v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable R. Kent Apsley,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
73D01-1902-F5-20, 73D01-1904-
F6-179
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] Ragina Stittums pled guilty, in an open plea under two separate cause numbers,
to seven offenses, the most serious being Level 5 felony and Level 6 felony
possession of methamphetamine. The trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of four years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction
(DOC) followed by two and one-half years on home detention as a direct
commitment. On appeal, Stittums argues that her partial commitment to the
DOC was inappropriate and that the trial court should have ordered all of her
sentence be served on home detention.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On February 23, 2019, Stittums was stopped while driving a vehicle with a
suspended license. She consented to a search of her vehicle, which resulted in
the discovery of a digital scale, methamphetamine pipes containing residue, two
small baggies and one vial of methamphetamine, and a small vial containing
marijuana. Stittums admitted that the items all belonged to her. The State
charged Stittums under cause number 73D01-1902-F5-20 (Cause F5-20) with
Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 5 felony possession of
methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C
misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
[4] On April 11, 2019, while out on bond in Cause F5-20, Stittums was pulled over
by police while traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. She gave a false
name to the officer but was eventually identified. Stittums consented to a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 2 of 7
search of her vehicle, which revealed a methamphetamine pipe and small
baggies that contained methamphetamine and marijuana. The State charged
her under cause number 73D01-1904-F6-179 (Cause F6-179) with Level 6
felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor false informing,
Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor
possession of paraphernalia.
[5] Stittums was held in custody until July 10, 2019, when the trial court released
her to pretrial home detention with the condition that she reside at Grace
House, a residential treatment facility in Shelbyville. While at Grace House,
Stittums, by her own account, obtained employment, remained drug free, and
worked toward recovery.
[6] On August 21, 2019, Stittums entered an open plea of guilty in both pending
causes. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on all counts except for
the Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in Cause F5-20. Per
Stittums’s request, the court proceeded to sentencing that same day. At the
conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Stittums in Cause
F5-20 to concurrent terms of four years in the DOC for Level 5 felony
possession of methamphetamine, ninety days for the Class B misdemeanor, and
60 days for the Class C misdemeanor. In Cause F6-179, the court sentenced
her to two and one-half years for Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine, concurrent with several short sentences for the
misdemeanor offenses, to be “served as a direct commitment to Community
Corrections to be served on Home Detention.” Appendix at 92. As required by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 3 of 7
I.C. § 35-50-1-1(e), the trial court ordered the sentences in the two causes to be
served consecutively. Thus, Stittums received an aggregate sentence of four
years in the DOC followed by two and one-half years on home detention.
Discussion & Decision
[7] Stittums contends that her sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a sentence
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we
find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Indiana’s flexible
sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the
circumstances presented and the trial court’s judgment “should receive
considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).
The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id.
at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day
turns on “our sense of 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.” Id. at 1224. Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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). The burden is
on the defendant to persuade us her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 4 of 7
[8] Stittums received a slightly aggravated sentence of four years for Cause F5-20’s
Level 5 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (sentencing range for a Level 5
felony is between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three
years). She received the maximum sentence of two and one-half years, served
on home detention, for Cause F6-179’s Level 6 felony. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b)
(sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months to two and one-
half years, with the advisory sentence being one year).
[9] On appeal, Stittums does not challenge the length of her sentence. Instead, she
challenges the trial court’s decision to order part of the sentence executed at the
DOC. She claims that the entirety of her aggregate sentence should be served
on home detention because while on pretrial release to home detention, she
“remained sober and behaved admirably by committing fully to treating her
addition.” Appellant’s Brief at 7-8. According to Stittums, she is properly
managing her addiction and is no longer a threat to society.
[10] “The place that a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application
of our review and revise authority.” Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind.
2007). “Nonetheless, we note that it will be quite difficult for a defendant to
prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate.”
Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also King v. State,
894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). This is because the question under
Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; the question is
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King, 894 N.E.2d at 268. “A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 5 of 7
defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the
given placement is itself inappropriate.” Id.
[11] Stittums does not allege that placement in the DOC followed by home
detention would make her drug treatment unsuccessful or impractical. See id.
Moreover, our review of the nature of her crimes and, more particularly, her
character indicates that the executed portion in the DOC is not inappropriate.
Her offenses may be minor when viewed in isolation, but she committed the
second set of offenses less than two months after being released on bond in
Cause F5-20. Further, her poor character is reflected by her lengthy criminal
history (with prior felony convictions in 2006, 2010, 2011, and 2014 in Indiana
and Colorado and fifteen separate misdemeanor convictions spanning from
1991 through 2018), numerous probation violations, failed attempt at drug
court in 2015, and her drug use shortly after completing purposeful
incarceration in 2017.
[12] In its lengthy oral sentencing statement, the trial court summarized why it was
sending Stittums to the DOC before home detention.
[I]f in fact you’re ready to get away from that life style then, then
I commend you for that, and you’re the only [person] that can
make sure that’s successful. That having been said, I would think
after 28 years of being involved in the criminal justice system you
would have been ready a long time ago. And certainly you’ve
been given every opportunity to be ready and to deal with your
drug issues. And particularly, I note the fact that you’ve been
through Drug Court before, that you’ve been committed to the
[DOC] before where you have received, I guess, intensive
substance abuse treatment or programming through the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 6 of 7
Purposeful Incarceration Program, and in fact actually got a time
cut from the [DOC] for completing [the program], and then not
withstanding that, you obviously pick up these new Level 5 and
Level 6 felony cases all involving drugs. So again, I do wish you
well with your, with your sobriety and your attempts to get sober,
but at some point, in particularly I would say after 26 criminal
arrests at some point you, you have to take responsibility and
accountability, and the Court has to hold you accountable for
your criminal acts.
Transcript at 46-47.
[13] The fact that Stittums may have been “doing beautifully on home detention” in
the forty-two days leading up to the sentencing hearing does not overshadow
the reality that she repeatedly failed to sustain such progress in the past.
Appellant’s Brief at 10. Stittums has failed to establish that the sentence imposed
is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character.
[14] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2372 | March 6, 2020 Page 7 of 7