Aaron Quintin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 03 2019, 9:26 am
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
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Aaron Quinton, July 3, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-266
v. Appeal from the Franklin Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Clay M.
Appellee-Plaintiff Kellerman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
24C02-1701-F5-61
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Aaron Quinton appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he pleaded
guilty to Level 5 Felony Operating a Vehicle After a Lifetime Suspension,
arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and his character. Finding the sentence not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On December 27, 2016, Franklin County Sheriff’s Deputies Jason Robinson
and Ryan Lackey arrived at the scene of an accident off Quarry Road, where
they found a green Volkswagen in a field. The vehicle had been driven through
a wire fence. The driver was not present, and no one was inside the vehicle.
[3] Around the time that the crash had been reported, Cynthia Quinton called the
Franklin County Sheriff’s Department to ask whether her husband, Quinton,
was incarcerated. Cynthia told the dispatchers that Quinton and another man
had been the last people inside the vehicle before the accident; she did not know
who had been driving at the time of the accident.
[4] On December 28, 2016, Deputy Lackey called Quinton. During the call,
Quinton told Lackey that two other men had been in the Volkswagen, that he
had been driving behind it in his truck, and that he saw that Volkswagen drive
into the field for no reason. On January 4, 2017, police received a report that
placed Quinton at the scene of the accident. When the officers contacted
Quinton again, he told Deputy Lackey that he had made up the story about the
other men driving the vehicle. He also said that he had been riding with a
woman named Tina Smith, who had been the driver, and that he had lied to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 2 of 6
police because Smith was afraid her boyfriend would become angry if he
learned that she had been with Quinton. Shortly after Deputy Lackey’s
conversation with Quinton, Smith contacted police. She initially claimed that
she had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, but after Deputy
Lackey shared the statement that placed Quinton at the scene, Smith conceded
that Quinton had been the driver. Deputy Lackey then contacted Quinton
again. This time, Quinton admitted that he had been driving the vehicle. He
told Deputy Lackey that he had lied because he had a poor driving history.
[5] On January 20, 2017, the State charged Quinton with Level 5 felony operating
a vehicle after a lifetime suspension. On May 16, 2018, Quinton pleaded guilty
to the charge. A sentencing hearing took place on July 24, 2018, during which
the trial court stated the following:
Well, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Quinton pled guilty, and I
hope that you’re moving in the right direction. But as I – as I
look at your criminal history, the State of Indiana determined 26
years ago that you shouldn’t be operating a motor vehicle
anywhere for life. And at that time, you had five DUIs. Since
then, you’ve had five more DUI convictions, and you have one
more pending. So today you plead guilty to that, that means you
have 11 OWIs in your lifetime. That’s a lot. With the criminal
history that wasn’t included in the presentence investigation,
that’s what you do have. By my count, this would be a 23rd
conviction, I believe. And at least the ninth felony. And just by
looking at the presentence investigation, you’ve been placed on
probation nine times, and you violated three times. You’ve been
given work release. You’ve had – you’ve pled guilty to certain
offenses and you had all the time suspended. You’ve been placed
in incarceration, and – and you’re back again. So we have a
criminal history spanning over 30 years, more than 20
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 3 of 6
convictions, multiple felonies, multiple counties. And it’s not
just OWI. It’s operating, it’s public intoxication, it’s possession
of marijuana. I mean there are all kinds of things. So I’ll note
that you’ve taken responsibility for this, but I can’t think of one
thing that probation could do for you, that hasn’t already been
offered. I appreciate the fact that you’ve tried to change your life,
and hopefully you are. But if there was ever a case where the
maximum sentence is appropriate, I believe this is it. . . .
Tr. Vol. II p. 40. The trial court then sentenced Quinton to six years, all
executed. Quinton now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Quinton’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence imposed by the trial
court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) states that a “Court may revise a sentence . . . if,
after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds 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 us that his
sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
In determining whether the sentence is inappropriate, we will consider
numerous factors such as culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and a “myriad [of] other factors that come to light
in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). It is our
job to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived “correct” sentencing result.
Id. at 1225.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 4 of 6
[8] Quinton pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony operating a vehicle after a lifetime
suspension. He faced a term of one to six years, with an advisory sentence of
three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Quinton received the maximum
sentence of six years, fully executed.
[9] As for the nature of the offense, Quinton operated a vehicle despite being
suspending for life from doing so. He should never have been behind the wheel
of a vehicle. His actions resulted in property damage to the wire fence through
which he drove. He left the scene of the accident and lied twice to Deputy
Lackey about what had happened and had Smith lie on his behalf. During his
sentencing hearing, Quinton admitted that he may have been under the
influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
[10] As for Quinton’s character, we note that Quinton has an extensive criminal
history. By the trial court’s count, Quinton has at least twenty-three prior
offenses, many of which were driving-related crimes. Since 1992, Quinton has
been convicted of eight driving offenses, including convictions for operating a
vehicle as an habitual traffic violator and operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
At the time of Quinton’s guilty plea hearing, he was released on bond from a
case in another county, which included charges of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated and possession of marijuana. Despite opportunities to reform his
behavior through probation and work release, he has failed to do so and
continues to violate the same laws in the same ways.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[11] Given the nature of his offense and Quinton’s character, we do not find the
sentence imposed by the trial court to be inappropriate.
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-266 | July 3, 2019 Page 6 of 6