Matthew R. Frazier v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Jan 24 2018, 7:21 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
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
Matthew R. Frazier, January 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
70A04-1710-CR-2380
v. Appeal from the Rush Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Hon. Brian D. Hill, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Plaintiff.
70D01-1604-F4-302
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In early 2016, Appellant-Defendant Matthew Frazier sold methamphetamine to
a confidential informant and ultimately pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing in
methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Frazier to an advisory term of six
years of incarceration, with two suspended to probation. Frazier contends that
his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 9, 2016, Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to a
confidential informant for $130.00 in Rush County. On April 28, 2016, the
State charged Frazier with Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6
felony methamphetamine possession, and Level 6 felony dealing in a controlled
substance. On September 11, 2017, Frazier pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing
in methamphetamine, and the trial court sentenced him to six years of
incarceration, with two suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Frazier contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. We “may revise a
sentence authorized by statute 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
“Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial
court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 4
sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences
when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650,
660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations and quotation marks omitted).
“[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on
our sense of 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In addition to the
“due consideration” we are required to give to the trial court’s sentencing
decision, “we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court
brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court sentenced Frazier to six years of
incarceration for Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, with two
suspended to probation. Six years is the advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony.
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5.
[4] The nature of the offense is that Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to
a confidential informant. While this offense does not seem to be particularly
heinous in terms of drug deals, Frazier’s six-year, advisory sentence already
reflects that, even before one considers the two years suspended to probation.
While the nature of Frazier’s offense might not support the imposition of an
enhanced sentence, it does not follow that it must support a reduced sentence.
[5] As for Frazier’s character, his lengthy criminal history does not speak well of
him. Frazier, who was thirty-two years old at the time of sentencing, has had
eight prior misdemeanor convictions, including public intoxication, two
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 4
convictions for possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and
possession of methamphetamine. Frazier also has five prior felony convictions,
including theft, maintaining a common nuisance, and neglect of a dependent.
The offense to which Frazier pled guilty is similar to most of the offenses for
which he has already been convicted, albeit more serious: Frazier has
progressed from mere possession of illegal drugs to dealing them. Despite
Frazier’s many criminal convictions, he has not chosen to reform himself, and
in fact, the severity of his crimes seems to be increasing. Frazier has failed to
establish that his six-year, advisory sentence (with two years suspended to
probation) is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.
[6] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 4 of 4