Charles Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Aug 08 2019, 8:25 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Russell W. Brown, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
King, Brown & Murdaugh, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Merrillville, Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Williams, August 8, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2866
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael S.
Appellee-Plaintiff Bergerson, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D01-1708-F4-804
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2866 | August 8, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Charles Williams pled guilty to level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, level 5
felony reckless homicide, and level 6 felony altering the scene of a death. The
trial court imposed consecutive executed sentences totaling seventeen years.
Williams contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences
on the dealing and reckless homicide convictions. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August 2017, Williams gave Ashleigh Blatz heroin in exchange for oral sex.
Blatz died in Williams’s home after ingesting the heroin, which was laced with
fentanyl. The next day, Williams dumped Blatz’s body on the side of the road.
[3] The State charged Williams with level 4 felony dealing in cocaine, level 4
felony dealing in a narcotic drug, level 5 felony reckless homicide, level 6 felony
altering the scene of a death, and being a habitual offender. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, the State agreed to dismiss the cocaine and habitual offender
charges, and Williams agreed to plead guilty to the remaining charges.
Sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. At sentencing, the court
found three mitigators, including Williams’s guilty plea and Vietnam War-
related post-traumatic stress syndrome, and three aggravators, including
Williams’s extensive criminal history comprising forty-nine arrests and/or
charges and ten felony convictions. The trial court found that the aggravators
“far outweigh” the mitigators and imposed executed sentences of ten years for
dealing, five years for reckless homicide, and two years for altering the scene of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2866 | August 8, 2019 Page 2 of 5
a death. Appealed Order at 2. The court found “that the sentences of
imprisonment shall be served consecutively to each other as each criminal act
was independent of the other and cannot be reasonably considered as a single
episode of criminal conduct.” Id. at 3. Williams now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Williams contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences
on the dealing and reckless homicide convictions. “An appellate claim of
sentencing error is subject to review for abuse of trial court discretion; reversal
results only if there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.” Slone v. State, 11
N.E.3d 969, 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). “In general, a
trial court cannot order consecutive sentences in the absence of express
statutory authority.” Id. Indiana Code Section 35-50-1-2 authorizes the
imposition of consecutive sentences and limits “the total of the consecutive
terms of imprisonment to which the defendant is sentenced for felony
convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct[,]” which is defined as
“offenses or a connected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place,
and circumstance.” 1 Williams fails to mention this statute, which the trial court
obviously was referring to in its order, and instead embarks on an irrelevant
discussion of double jeopardy principles. Consequently, he has waived his
1
“In order to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court must find at least one aggravating circumstance.”
Gross v. State, 22 N.E.3d 863, 870 (Ind. Ct. Ap. 2014), trans. denied (2015). Here, the trial court found three
aggravating circumstances and further found that they “far outweigh” the mitigating circumstances.
Appealed Order at 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2866 | August 8, 2019 Page 3 of 5
argument. See Williams v. State, 724 N.E.2d 1070, 1083 n.6 (Ind. 2000) (finding
argument waived where defendant “provided no cogent argument or citation to
relevant authority”), cert. denied (2001).
[5] Waiver notwithstanding, Section 35-50-1-2(c) states in pertinent part that,
“except for crimes of violence, the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment …
to which the defendant is sentenced for felony convictions arising out of an
episode of criminal conduct shall not exceed the period described in subsection
(d).” (Emphasis added.) Section 35-50-1-2(d) provides in pertinent part,
the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment to which the
defendant is sentenced for felony convictions arising out of an
episode of criminal conduct may not exceed the following: … (3)
if the most serious crime for which the defendant is sentenced is a
Level 4 felony, the total of the consecutive terms of
imprisonment may not exceed fifteen (15) years[.]
We first note that reckless homicide is a “crime of violence” pursuant to Section
35-50-1-2(a)(5) and therefore is exempted from the limitations of Section 35-50-
1-2(d). We further note that Williams does not contend that his conviction for
altering the scene of a death arose out of an episode of criminal conduct. And
finally, we note that the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment for
Williams’s dealing and reckless homicide convictions is fifteen years. Thus,
even if reckless homicide were not a crime of violence, and even if Williams’s
dealing and reckless homicide convictions arose out of an episode of criminal
conduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive
sentences on those convictions totaling fifteen years. Therefore, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2866 | August 8, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[6] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2866 | August 8, 2019 Page 5 of 5