Ataul Shafeek, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited
before any court except for the purpose
Jan 23 2015, 9:40 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ADAM G. FORREST GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Boston Bever Klinge Cross & Chidester Attorney General of Indiana
Richmond, Indiana
KENNETH E. BIGGINS
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ATAUL SHAFEEK, JR., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 89A01-1403-CR-147
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David A. Kolger, Judge
Cause No. 89C01-1301-MR-1
January 23, 2015
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Ataul Shafeek, Jr., appeals his fifty-six year sentence for murder. We affirm.
Issues
Shafeek raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
In 2012, Shafeek, who lived in Dayton, Ohio, had a two-year-old daughter with
Jazamine Allen, who lived in Richmond. The two were no longer a couple and
exchanged custody of their daughter every two weeks. On January 11, 2013, Shafeek
had returned their daughter to Allen’s apartment without incident. Allen was there with
her two other children, her sister, her sister’s child, and Shaun Ali, Allen’s boyfriend.
The next day, January 12, 2013, Allen was at her apartment with her sister, Ali,
and the four children. She noticed that she had seven missed calls from Shafeek. Around
the same time Shafeek appeared unexpectedly at her apartment and pushed his way into
the apartment to visit with the children. Allen asked Shafeek to leave, and he refused.
Instead, Allen and Ali went for a walk. Shafeek twice approached the couple while they
were out. When the three returned to the apartment, Shafeek attempted to block the door
to prevent Ali from entering the apartment. Shafeek explained that Ali was devil, who
was trying to kill him. The two men then began arguing in a bedroom where one of the
children was sleeping. Ali was able restrain Shafeek, and Allen took the child from the
bedroom. When Allen returned to the bedroom, Shafeek was stabbing Ali with a kitchen
knife that Shafeek had put in the bedroom earlier. Allen was able to intervene, and
2
Shafeek left the apartment as police arrived. Ali was stabbed twenty times and died from
his injuries.
The State charged Shafeek with murder. Shafeek pursued the defenses of self-
defense and mental disease or defect. Shafeek eventually stipulated to his competency to
stand trial but maintained his defense of mental disease or defect. Dr. Edmund Haskins, a
clinical neuropsychologist, testified at Shafeek’s jury trial that Shafeek suffered from
bipolar disorder with psychosis. Dr. George Parker, a forensic psychiatrist, also
diagnosed Shafeek as having bipolar disorder with psychotic features. At the trial,
Shafeek testified that a voice told him Ali was trying to kill him, that the knife spoke to
him when he was in kitchen, and that, when he was stabbing Ali, he was having an out-
of-body experience in which God was fighting the devil. The jury found Shafeek guilty
of murder.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered as aggravating that Shafeek
had not been leading a law-abiding life despite having no significant criminal history
because he used marijuana daily. The trial court also considered as aggravating the fact
that the crime was committed in close proximity to four young children. As mitigating,
the trial court considered Shafeek’s mental illness but acknowledged that Shafeek was
aware of the issue and self-medicated with marijuana instead of treating it. The trial
court determined that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Shafeek
to fifty-six years. However, to account for Shafeek’s mental illness, the trial court
suspended five years of that sentence to probation to make sure Shafeek does not self-
medicate and takes the proper medication upon his release. Shafeek now appeals.
3
Analysis
Shafeek argues that his fifty-six-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized by statute 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. Although Rule 7(B) does not
require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still
must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden
of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—
the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of
counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the
crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B),
we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended.
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
4
Regarding the nature of the offense, Shafeek went to Allen’s home uninvited,
refused to leave upon her request, put a knife in a bedroom, and stabbed Ali twenty times,
while four young children were present in the home. Even if Ali threw the first punch,
we are not persuaded that Shafeek’s actions were provoked by Ali as Shafeek argues.
Prior to the physical altercation, Shafeek had refused Allen’s request to leave the
apartment and Shafeek forcibly tried to block Ali’s entry into the apartment. Nothing
about the nature of the offense warrants the reduction of the sentence.
As for his character, although Shafeek does not have a significant criminal history,
his criminal history does include a juvenile adjudication. Moreover, twenty-four-year-old
Shafeek admitted to smoking marijuana daily since he was eighteen. This type of illegal
drug use is not indicative of someone who has led a law-abiding life. As for his mental
health, there is evidence that he suffers from bipolar disorder with psychosis and
depression. However, Dr. Parker concluded that, despite Shafeek’s mental illness, he had
“a basic appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the alleged
offense.” Sent. Hr. Ex. 3. p. 9. Also, there is evidence that Shafeek had been suffering
from hallucinations for several months and was hospitalized for his mental health issues
in December 2012. He was released the next day because he was no longer suicidal, and
an out-patient mental health follow-up was recommended. However, Shafeek did not
seek additional treatment. The trial court considered Shafeek’s mental illness when it
crafted his sentenced and specifically suspended five years of his sentence to account for
his mental illness. In light of the nature of the brutal attack in the presence of four young
children, we cannot conclude that the fifty-six-year sentence is inappropriate.
5
Conclusion
Shafeek has not established that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
6