Alvin D. Allen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                    FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    Jul 31 2017, 8:19 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                  CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                       Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Cara Schaefer Wieneke                                    Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Wieneke Law Office, LLC                                  Attorney General of Indiana
    Brooklyn, Indiana
    Christina D. Pace
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Alvin D. Allen,                                          July 31, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    84A04-1702-CR-406
    v.                                               Appeal from the Vigo Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable John T. Roach,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                       Judge
    Trial Court Cause Nos.
    84D01-1512-F2-3063
    84D01-1601-F4-218
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1702-CR-406 | July 31, 2017          Page 1 of 5
    [1]   Alvin Allen appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after Allen pleaded
    guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4 felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, and Level 6 felony theft of a firearm.1 Allen contends that
    the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
    character. Finding that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
    [2]   On December 2, 2015, a confidential informant working with law enforcement
    in Vigo County conducted a controlled buy of methamphetamine from Allen at
    his home. On December 10, 2015, police executed a search warrant at Allen’s
    home, during which they found methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, a
    glass smoking pipe, and several firearms. Allen’s toddler son was home at the
    time.
    [3]   On December 14, 2015, the State charged Allen under cause number 84D01-
    1512-F2-3063 (F2-3063)2 with the following: Level 2 felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 4
    felony dealing in a controlled substance, Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent,
    two counts of Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, two counts of
    Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, Class B
    misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor possession of
    1
    In Allen’s plea agreement, he agreed to waive the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this matter. At
    the sentencing hearing, however, the trial court advised Allen that he had a right to appeal his sentence
    because there was no agreement as to the sentence. Tr. p. 13. Neither Allen’s counsel nor the State objected
    to the trial court’s statement. The State is not challenging Allen’s right to appeal his sentence.
    2
    These offenses stem from the December 10, 2015, search of Allen’s residence.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1702-CR-406 | July 31, 2017               Page 2 of 5
    paraphernalia. The State filed a notice of intent to seek two firearm
    enhancements for the charge of Level 4 felony dealing in a controlled
    substance.
    [4]   On January 27, 2016, the State charged Allen under cause number 84D01-1601-
    F4-218 (F4-218)3 with the following: Level 4 felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level
    6 felony maintaining a common nuisance.
    [5]   On January 25, 2017, Allen pleaded guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level
    6 felony theft of a firearm under cause F2-3063, and to Level 4 felony dealing in
    methamphetamine under cause F4-218. Under the plea agreement, the State
    agreed to dismiss all remaining charges. The plea agreement provided that all
    sentences would run concurrently, and it capped the aggregate sentence at
    twenty years. At the January 25, 2017, sentencing hearing, the trial court
    merged Allen’s Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine conviction into
    the Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine to prevent double jeopardy
    concerns. The trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence for his Level 2
    conviction, an eight-year sentence for his Level 4 conviction, and a two-year
    sentence for his Level 6 conviction, all to run concurrently, for an aggregate
    sentence of twenty years.
    3
    These offenses stem from the December 2, 2015, controlled buy.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1702-CR-406 | July 31, 2017   Page 3 of 5
    [6]   Allen’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is inappropriate in light of
    the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
    provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of
    the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We must “conduct
    [this] review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial
    court's decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven
    the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . . ” Knapp v.
    State, 
    9 N.E.3d 1274
    , 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 
    989 N.E.2d 1257
    , 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
    [7]   Allen pleaded guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4
    felony dealing in methamphetamine, and Level 6 felony theft of a firearm. For
    his Level 2 conviction, he faced a term of ten to thirty years, with an advisory
    term of seventeen and one-half years imprisonment. 
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4
    .5.
    For his Level 4 conviction, he faced a term of two to twelve years
    imprisonment, with an advisory term of six years imprisonment. I.C. § 35-50-2-
    5.5. For his Level 6 conviction, he faced a term of six months to two and one-
    half years, with an advisory term of one year imprisonment. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.
    Allen received an aggregate executed twenty-year sentence.
    [8]   Initially, we note that Allen agreed to enter into a plea agreement that provided
    that he could receive a maximum sentence of twenty years. The trial court
    imposed a twenty-year sentence, as contemplated by the plea agreement, and
    because Allen agreed to this sentence, he cannot now argue that it was
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1702-CR-406 | July 31, 2017   Page 4 of 5
    inappropriate. His agreement notwithstanding, we will still discuss his
    argument.
    [9]    As for the nature of the offense, Allen possessed and intended to deal
    methamphetamine. He committed theft of a firearm. While these offenses are
    not the worst of the worst, Allen put his young child in harm’s way by
    conducting his activities in the presence of and within close proximity to his
    child.
    [10]   As for Allen’s character, he has a lengthy history of contact with the criminal
    justice system. As a teenager, he was committed to the Indiana Boys’ School
    four times. As an adult, he has had six felony convictions, including two
    convictions for Class D felony possession of cocaine, Class D felony possession
    of methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of marijuana, and Class C
    felony possession of methamphetamine. In addition, he has had ten
    misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for domestic battery,
    possession of marijuana, and resisting law enforcement.
    [11]   Given the nature of the offenses and Allen’s character, including a lengthy
    history of contact with the criminal justice system that has not deterred him
    from continuing to commit crimes, we do not find the sentence imposed by the
    trial court to be inappropriate.
    [12]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1702-CR-406 | July 31, 2017   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84A04-1702-CR-406

Filed Date: 7/31/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/31/2017