Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 31 2017, 7:27 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.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ruth Ann Johnson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Darren Bedwell Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender
Appellate Division Matthew B. Mackenzie
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward Chandler, July 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1702-CR-245
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-1602-F3-8004
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Edward Chandler appeals his six-year sentence for Level 5 felony robbery. 1 We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 14, 2016, Chandler entered a Dollar General store and told the
cashier, “[O]pen the drawer. Give me the money.” (Tr. Vol. II at 35.) The
cashier testified she saw Chandler display the butt of a handgun tucked into his
clothing. The cashier told him she could not open the cash register until he
bought something, so Chandler threw a bag of candy on the counter and told
the cashier, “hurry up, hurry up.” (Id. at 36.) Chandler grabbed the money,
approximately $95.00, from the cashier and exited the store. The exchange was
caught on store surveillance video, which the cashier and manager gave to law
enforcement.
[3] Based on an anonymous tip, police obtained a search warrant and searched
Chandler’s apartment, where they found a handgun and distinctively-patterned
shoes like those in the video. The day after the search, Chandler turned himself
in and confessed to the crime. On March 1, 2016, the State charged Chandler
with Level 3 felony robbery 2 and Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1) (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 5
serious violent felon. 3 On April 7, 2016, the State filed an habitual offender
enhancement. 4
[4] The court bifurcated the charges for trial. On November 17, 2016, the jury
hearing evidence on the robbery charge returned a guilty verdict for the lesser-
included offense of Level 5 felony robbery. The State then dismissed the
firearm charge and the habitual offender enhancement. On January 9, 2017,
the trial court sentenced Chandler to six years incarcerated.
Discussion and Decision
[5] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). We consider not only
the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other
factors appearing in the record. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[6] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The
3
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2014).
4
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 5
advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory
sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014). The trial court
sentenced Chandler to six years incarcerated. One factor we consider when
determining the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory sentence is
whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed
by the defendant that makes it different from the “typical” offense accounted for
by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d
44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We agree with Chandler that the facts
of this crime are not particularly noteworthy. Chandler forcefully asked the
Dollar General cashier for the money in the cash register and took it from her.
Chandler received approximately $95.00 from the robbery.
[7] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s
character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in
relation to the current offense. Id. Chandler’s criminal history goes back
almost twenty years and includes nine felonies, multiple misdemeanors, and
three habitual offender adjudications. Four of those felony convictions were for
robbery. As reasons he should not have been sentenced above the advisory,
Chandler points to the facts he turned himself in, he had engaged in
rehabilitative services in the past, and he was remorseful at sentencing.
However, his criminal history alone renders his sentence not inappropriate, as it
demonstrates his continued disregard for the law and his inability to benefit
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 4 of 5
from rehabilitative services. See Speer v. State, 995 N.E.2d 1, 14 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013) (sentences higher than the advisory not inappropriate based on Speer’s
extensive criminal history for similar offenses), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[8] Chandler’s six-year sentence for Level 5 felony robbery was not inappropriate
based on the nature of the offense and his character. Accordingly, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 5 of 5