Alden A. Tarr, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2021 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 25 2021, 8:33 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
Stacy R. Uliana Theodore E. Rokita
Bargersville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Catherine Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alden A. Tarr, Jr., January 25, 2021
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1514
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David L. McCord,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C03-1904-F6-144
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Alden Tarr pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”), a
Level 6 felony, and admitted to being an habitual vehicular substance offender.
Tarr was sentenced to six years, with three years to be executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction (“DOC”) followed by three years of probation. Tarr
now appeals his sentence, raising one issue for our review: whether his executed
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.
Concluding his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 10, 2019, Deputy Ben Wright of the Henry County Sheriff’s
Department was dispatched to a Steak n’ Shake in response to reports of an
impaired motorcycle driver. Upon arrival, Deputy Wright found Tarr lying in a
mulch bed using his phone. The motorcycle driven by Tarr had damage to the
left side where Tarr had dropped the vehicle on the asphalt. Tarr told Deputy
Wright that he had been drinking and “[Tarr’s] eyes were dark red and he
appeared to struggle to speak without slurring his words.” Appellant’s
Appendix, Volume 2 at 19. Deputy Wright asked Tarr if he would perform a
field sobriety test or a portable breathalyzer test. Tarr refused to submit to
either. Deputy Wright arrested Tarr and obtained a warrant for a blood draw.
[3] On April 12, 2019, the State charged Tarr with OWI, a Class A misdemeanor;
public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor; OWI with a prior conviction, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 2 of 8
Level 6 felony; and included an habitual vehicular substance offender
enhancement. On June 2, 2020, the State and Tarr entered into an agreement
for Tarr to plead guilty to OWI enhanced to a Level 6 felony and admit to being
an habitual vehicular substance offender. See id. at 113. In exchange for Tarr’s
guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the public intoxication charge. Id. The
State recommended Tarr be sentenced to the DOC for one year for OWI and
two years for the habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement but the
plea agreement also provided that Tarr was “free to advocate a lesser sentence”
and the trial court was “free to assess any sentence within the range of
possibilities greater than the recommended sentence[;] . . . free to impose a
sentence lesser than the State’s recommended sentence; and may use any
sentence options” including in-home detention or work release. Id. However,
the parties agreed any sentence greater than the recommended sentence would
be suspended. Id.
[4] Tarr’s sentencing hearing was held on July 20, 2020. Finding Tarr’s criminal
history, including multiple misdemeanor and felony convictions, and failed
rehabilitation efforts to be aggravating factors and his “semi open plea
agreement” to be a slight mitigating factor, the trial court sentenced him to six
years, with three years to be served in the DOC followed by three years of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 3 of 8
probation.1 See Transcript of Evidence, Volume II at 17-18. Tarr now appeals.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence “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.” Sentencing is “principally a discretionary function” of the trial court
to which we afford great deference. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222
(Ind. 2008). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling
evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the
defendant’s character[.]” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[6] The defendant carries the burden of persuading us that the sentence imposed by
the trial court is inappropriate, Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006), and we may look to any factors appearing in the record in making such a
determination, Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The
question under Rule 7(B) is “not whether another sentence is more appropriate;
rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v.
1
The trial court sentenced Tarr to two years, with one year suspended, for his Level 6 felony OWI
conviction, enhanced by four years, with two years suspended, for his status as an habitual vehicular
substance abuse offender. Transcript of Evidence, Volume II at 17.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 4 of 8
State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “The principal role of
appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ... not to achieve a
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.
II. Inappropriate Sentence
[7] Tarr does not challenge the length of his sentence but “rather his placement in
prison over home detention, as inappropriate.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. The
location where 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). “A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us
that the given placement is itself inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d
340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). However, it is difficult for a defendant to prevail
on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate because
“trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties
or communities.” Id. at 343. Tarr contends that he is a longtime alcoholic and
“[p]utting him in prison when home detention and treatment are available is
inappropriate.” Appellant’s Br. at 11. We disagree.
[8] We consider both prongs of Rule 7(B), the nature of the offense and the
character of the defendant, in our assessment of the inappropriateness of a
sentence. Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Generally,
the nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding
the offense and the defendant’s participation therein. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1,
13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). However, Tarr presents no facts or argument regarding
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 5 of 8
the nature of his offense.2 Without more, Tarr has not met his burden to
persuade us that the nature of his offense warrants a change in placement.3
[9] The “character of the offender” portion of the Rule 7(B) standard refers to the
general sentencing considerations and relevant aggravating and mitigating
factors, Williams v. State, 782 N.E.2d 1039, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans.
denied, and permits a broader consideration of the defendant’s
character, Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied.
[10] A defendant’s life and conduct are illustrative of his character. Washington v.
State, 940 N.E.2d 1220, 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. One relevant
factor in assessing character is a defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State,
866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The significance of criminal history
“varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to
the current offense.” Id. Here, Tarr has an extensive criminal history stretching
back to 1989 comprised, in part, of multiple OWIs, a misdemeanor battery, and
convictions for unlawful sale of a precursor and dumping controlled substance
2
Tarr does concede that “the nature of [his] offense is serious because it is his sixth [OWI] conviction[.]”
Appellant’s Br. at 11
3
We note that, because Tarr pleaded guilty, the transcript of the guilty plea/sentencing hearing contains only
the most basic recitation of the factual basis underlying the plea. Thus, the State relies on the probable cause
affidavit to provide us some insight regarding the nature of Tarr’s offense. See Brief of Appellee at 4-5 (citing
Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 19-20). However, it is not the State’s burden to show that the imposed sentence is
appropriate in light of the nature of the offense. Rather, it is Tarr’s burden to demonstrate that the imposed
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense. By providing us no details or circumstances of
his offense, he has failed to meet his burden.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 6 of 8
waste-chemicals as part of a plea agreement dismissing dealing in
methamphetamine charges.4 See Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 123-25. Also, Tarr
was arrested during the proceedings for this charge for failing to appear. See id.
at 126.
[11] This court has found that placement in the DOC is not inappropriate when
prior, less restrictive efforts at rehabilitation have been unsuccessful.
See Fonner, 876 N.E.2d at 344. Tarr’s criminal history began in 1989 and is
comprised of three felony convictions and ten misdemeanor convictions,
including five OWI convictions. See Appellants App., Vol. 2 at 123-26. Tarr has
been given multiple chances to serve sentences outside the DOC and has been
unsuccessful. He has been on probation several times and has had probation
terminated as unsuccessful twice. See Tr., Vol. II at 17; Appellant’s App., Vol. 2
at 126. And in 2016, Tarr was released from Henry County Jail to the House of
Hope for substance abuse treatment but left House of Hope after testing positive
for suboxone. The record reveals that despite Tarr repeatedly receiving less
restrictive placements, or having jail time suspended to probation, he has
continued to commit crimes. Thus, we cannot say that commitment to DOC is
inappropriate.
4
The trial court did not consider Tarr’s pending OWI charge in another county as part of his criminal
history. See Tr., Vol. II at 17. Further, even if we do not include Tarr’s two 2016 OWI offenses in our
assessment of his criminal history as they were the basis for enhancing Tarr’s OWI from a Class A
misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony and the habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement, Appellant’s
App., Vol. 2 at 37, 49, his criminal history still outweighs any mitigators.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 7 of 8
[12] In an attempt to portray his character in a positive light, Tarr emphasizes that
he is one year sober and is currently employed and owns a home; however, we
are unpersuaded that this overcomes his significant criminal history and the
serious nature of his current offense. Accordingly, Tarr has failed to meet his
burden of showing an executed sentence in the DOC is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[13] We conclude that Tarr’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of
his offense and his character. Accordingly, we affirm.
[14] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1514 | January 25, 2021 Page 8 of 8