Douglas Edward Akridge, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 05 2020, 8:33 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Carlos I. Carrillo Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Greenwood, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Douglas Edward Akridge, Jr., November 5, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-757
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana,
The Honorable Kristen E. McVey,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D05-1911-F6-1219
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
[1] Douglas Edward Akridge, Jr., appeals the one and one-half year sentence the
trial court imposed after he pleaded guilty to failure to return to lawful
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 1 of 7
1
detention, a Level 6 felony. He asks the Court to review and revise his
sentence. We affirm because Akridge’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and his character.
[2] In August 2019, Akridge was serving a sentence on community corrections in
Case Number 79D05-1712-F6-1344 (F6-1344) after pleading guilty to a prior
charge of failure to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony, with a habitual
offender sentencing enhancement. Community corrections officers tracked
Akridge by a GPS unit attached to his leg. In addition, they had reviewed and
approved his daily schedule, which included attending substance abuse
treatment and going to work at a fast-food restaurant.
[3] The officers filed conduct violation reports in Akridge’s case on August 14, 17,
and 27, 2019, respectively. They claimed he had committed violations
including attempted tampering with his GPS device, failing a drug screen, and
failing to pay community corrections fees.
[4] On the morning of August 30, 2019, Akridge left the work release facility to
attend substance abuse treatment, to be followed by a shift at work. He did not
return to the facility at the specified time later in the day, and his GPS unit
stopped reporting data. On August 31, investigating officers learned that
Akridge had reported to his treatment provider after a six-hour delay, but he
had never reported to work. The officers checked area hospitals and the county
1
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7
jail, but they did not locate Akridge on August 31. They subsequently arrested
him at a co-worker’s home.
[5] The State requested revocation of Akridge’s community corrections placement
in F6-1344. In addition, on November 12, 2019, the State opened Case
Number 79D05-1911-F6-1219 (F6-1219), charging Akridge with a new count of
failure to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony.
[6] Akridge later pleaded guilty as charged in F6-1219 without a plea agreement
and admitted to violating the terms of his community corrections placement in
F6-1344. The trial court sentenced him to one and one-half years in F6-1219,
with six months of the sentence to be served on community corrections. The
court further ordered Akridge to serve the remaining 377 days of his sentence in
F6-1344 in the Department of Correction or the county jail. This appeal
followed.
[7] Akridge challenges the executed portion of his sentence in F6-1219, asking the
2
Court to allow him to serve it entirely on work release. Article 7, section 6 of
the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review and revise sentences
“to the extent provided by rule.” This constitutional authority is implemented
through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that Indiana’s appellate courts
may revise a sentence otherwise authorized by statute “if, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is
2
Akridge is not challenging his sentence in F6-1344.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.”
[8] The principle role of appellate review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to attempt to
leaven the outliers. Hunter v. State, 60 N.E.3d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied. “[W]e must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing
decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that
decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a
trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858,
866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). More specifically, when a defendant claims that the
placement of a sentence is inappropriate, it is “quite difficult” for the defendant
to prevail because “trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in
particular counties or communities.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2007). A defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court
that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006).
[9] To assess whether a sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory
range established for the class of the offense. When Akridge committed failure
to return to lawful detention, the sentencing range for a Level 6 felony was
imprisonment for a fixed term of between six months and two and one-half
years, with the advisory sentence being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (2019).
The trial court sentenced Riley to an enhanced sentence of one and one-half
years, but six months of the sentence is to be served on community corrections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7
[10] Next, we look to the nature of the offense. “The nature of the offense is found
in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant’s
participation therein.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App.
2018), trans. denied (2019). Akridge claims his failure to return to the work
release facility was the result of a series of medical and financial challenges that
caused him to become anxious about returning to the crowded work release
facility, resulting in him self-medicating with methamphetamine and hiding out
at a co-worker’s home.
[11] There is no dispute that Akridge has serious mental health issues, but he did not
raise his medical and financial issues with community corrections officers.
Instead, he committed a series of rule infractions in August 2019, including a
failed drug test and attempted tampering with his GPS monitoring device,
before finally absconding on August 30, 2019. Akridge’s use of
methamphetamine during his period of escape compounds the seriousness of
his offense. Although Akridge claims he sought help at emergency rooms prior
to August 30, his failure to return to the work release facility after a string of
violation reports indicates he was primarily motivated by a fear of losing his
community corrections placement.
[12] We now turn to the character of the offender. The character of the offender is
found in what we learn of the defendant’s life and conduct. Morris, 114 N.E.3d
at 539. Akridge was thirty-six years old at sentencing. The trial court did not
direct the preparation of a presentence investigation report, but the record
demonstrates Akridge was serving a sentence for failure to return to lawful
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7
detention, with a habitual offender sentencing enhancement, when he
committed the offense in F6-1219. Given Akridge’s history of repeated escapes
from community corrections, it is reasonable to conclude that a period of
incarceration is necessary to emphasize to Akridge the importance of
complying with community corrections rules.
[13] In addition, the habitual offender sentencing enhancement was based on prior
felony convictions of possession of methamphetamine, possession of a legend
drug, and check fraud. Also, during sentencing, Akridge conceded he had been
convicted of an unspecified offense in a case in Tippecanoe Superior Court 4 for
an act he committed after his August 30 failure to return to community
corrections. His numerous prior contacts with the criminal justice system have
not induced him to correct his behavior.
[14] Akridge notes that he pleaded guilty without an agreement. While a guilty plea
that provides no benefit to a defendant is generally entitled to mitigating weight,
such a plea “is not necessarily a significant mitigating factor” where the
evidence of guilt is substantial. Scott v. State, 840 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006) (determining Scott’s guilty plea was entitled to less weight because
an eyewitness could identify Scott as the robber), trans. denied. In this case,
there is substantial evidence of Akridge’s failure to return to lawful detention.
He has failed to demonstrate that his one-year period of incarceration is an
outlier in need of correction.
[15] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[16] Judgment affirmed.
May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-757 | November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7