Michael Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 14 2018, 10:46 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
Sally Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Jackson, March 14, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1710-CR-2567
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D03-1704-F6-382
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Michael Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals his sentence, following a guilty plea, for
Escape, as a Level 6 felony.1 On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the
trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 28, 2017, the State charged Jackson with two counts of rape, as a
Level 1 felony;2 one count of criminal confinement, as a Level 3 felony;3 and
battery, as a Level 5 felony4 in cause number 71D03-1604-F1-9. As a condition
of bond, Jackson was required to wear a global positioning system (“GPS”)
monitor. The court held a bench trial on March 20, 2017, and took the matter
under advisement. On April 26, the trial court issued an order finding Jackson
guilty of one count of Level 1 felony rape; one count of Level 5 felony battery
as a lesser included charge of rape; and one count of Level 3 felony criminal
confinement. The trial court found Jackson not guilty of the Level 5 felony
battery charge.
1
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b).
2
I.C. § 35-42-4-1(b).
3
I.C. § 35-42-3-3(b)(2).
4
I.C. § 35-42-2-1(g).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 2 of 6
[3] Jackson did not appear for an April 28 sentencing hearing in that case, and the
trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. At approximately 10:20 a.m.
that same day, Michael Wells (“Wells”) with the DuComb Center was
monitoring GPS alerts and noticed that Jackson’s monitor had issued a tamper
alert at 10:02 a.m. that day. Jackson’s case manager then called Wells to
inform him that Jackson’s GPS transmitter had been found on a street in South
Bend.
[4] The State charged Jackson with escape as a Level 6 felony in cause number
71D03-1704-F6-382. On July 5, 2017, without a plea agreement, Jackson pled
guilty to the charge and admitted that he intentionally removed an electronic
monitoring device or a GPS tracking device. The parties waived a pre-sentence
report. At the following sentencing hearing, the prosecutor noted that a video
from a recording device in the courthouse lobby showed Jackson absconding
from the courthouse on the date he was to be sentenced for the other charges,
i.e., April 28. The prosecutor observed that it appeared from the video that
Jackson or his female companion had arranged for someone to pick them up
from the courthouse and that his escape seemed to be “calculated.” Tr. Vol. II
at 13, 14. The prosecutor also noted that Jackson was ultimately apprehended
in another city and that the State and U.S. Marshals had expended resources in
order to apprehend Jackson. Jackson did not offer any mitigating factors for
consideration at his sentencing.
[5] In determining Jackson’s sentence for escape as a Level 6 felony, the trial court
noted that Jackson had past criminal convictions for burglary, possession of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 3 of 6
marijuana, solicitation, operating while intoxicated, and conversion, in addition
to the other more serious and recent convictions for rape and criminal
confinement. The trial court sentenced Jackson to two and one-half years in
the Department of Correction to be served consecutive to his aggregate sentence
on the other charges. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Jackson challenges his sentence. Sentencing decisions lie within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind.
2008). An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is “clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Gross v. State, 22
N.E.3d 863, 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citation omitted), trans. denied. A trial
court abuses its discretion in sentencing a defendant if it does any of the
following:
(1) fails “to enter a sentencing statement at all;” (2) enters “a
sentencing statement that explains reasons for imposing a
sentence—including a finding of aggravating and mitigating
factors if any[5]—but the record does not support the reasons;” (3)
5
We note that the trial court does not have “an obligation to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors
against each other when imposing a sentence.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007).
However, neither is the trial court prohibited from identifying facts in aggravation or mitigation. Id. And, if
the trial court does find the existence of such factors, “then the trial court is required to give ‘a statement of
the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (2006)).
The trial court did so in this case when it noted Jackson’s criminal history during its imposition of his
sentence. Tr. Vol. II at 15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 4 of 6
enters a sentencing statement that “omits reasons that are clearly
supported by the record and advanced for consideration;” or (4)
considers reasons that “are improper as a matter of law.”
Id. (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). However, the relative weight or value
assignable to reasons properly found, or those which should have been found, is
not subject to review for abuse of discretion, id., and a trial court is under no
obligation to explain why a proposed mitigator does not exist or why the court
gave it insignificant weight, Sandleben v. State, 22 N.E.3d 782, 796 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), trans. denied.
[7] Jackson’s specific contention is that the trial court erred in its sentencing by
failing to find his guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. “The significance of a
guilty plea as a mitigating factor varies from case to case.” Anglemyer, 875
N.E.2d at 221. As this court has noted previously, “[a] guilty plea is not
necessarily a mitigating factor where the defendant receives substantial benefit
from the plea or where evidence against the defendant is so strong that the
decision to plead guilty is merely pragmatic.” Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d
208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Here, the
evidence indicating that Jackson was guilty of the crime of escape was so
overwhelming that his decision to plead guilty was simply pragmatic. There
was video recording which showed Jackson escaping from the courthouse on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 5 of 6
the day in question,6 and his GPS monitor had been found in an alley soon
thereafter. Given the substantial evidence against Jackson, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion when it failed to find Jackson’s guilty plea to be a
mitigating factor. Id.[8] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
6
The State had disclosed the existence of the video tape to Jackson in its June 7, 2017, disclosure of
discovery. Appellant’s App. at 41.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1710-CR-2567 | March 14, 2018 Page 6 of 6