Christopher Reid v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Apr 12 2017, 10:28 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Reid, April 12, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
16A01-1611-CR-2554
v. Appeal from the Decatur Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew Bailey,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
16D01-1512-F6-793
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 1 of 6
[1] Christopher Reid appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to
operating a motor vehicle after being adjudicated a habitual traffic violator
(HTV) and his admission to being a habitual offender. On appeal, Reid argues
that his four-and-a-half-year sentence, with four years executed and six months
suspended to probation, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On December 10, 2015, Reid was pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic by
remaining in the left-hand passing lane of a four-lane divided highway. When
the police officer checked Reid’s driver’s license, he learned that Reid’s driving
privileges were suspended due to his HTV status. Reid was placed under arrest
and charged with operating a vehicle after being adjudicated an HTV. The
State subsequently added a habitual offender allegation.
[4] On September 20, 2016, Reid pled guilty to the HTV charge and admitted his
habitual offender status without the benefit of a plea agreement. The trial court
sentenced Reid to two and a half years for the HTV offense, enhanced by two
years for being a habitual offender, resulting in an aggregate sentence of four
and a half years. The trial court ordered the first four years executed in the
Department of Correction and the remaining six months suspended to
probation. Reid now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 2 of 6
Discussion & Decision
[5] Reid argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants
our Supreme Court the power to review and revise criminal sentences. See
Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 978
(2015). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court authorized this
court to perform the same task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). Per App. R. 7(B), we may revise a sentence “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.” Inman v.
State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7). “Sentencing review
under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State,
972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). Reid bears the burden on appeal of
persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. See id.
[6] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “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.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895
N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to
leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is
not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in
each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under
Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 3 of 6
the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State,
894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original).
[7] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the
statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense.
Pursuant to his guilty plea, Reid was convicted of operating a vehicle after
being adjudicated an HTV, a Level 6 felony, and found to be a habitual
offender. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two and
half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b).
Additionally, a person who is convicted of a Level 5 or 6 felony and who is
found to be a habitual offender shall be sentenced to an additional term
between two and six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i). Reid received the maximum
sentence of two and a half years for his HTV conviction, but the minimum two-
year enhancement for being a habitual offender.
[8] The nature of Reid’s offense is unremarkable—he operated a vehicle despite
being aware of his HTV status. On appeal, Reid argues that the seriousness of
his offense is mitigated because he drove out of necessity. 1 Specifically, he
directs our attention to his own testimony at his sentencing hearing, in which he
stated that he had to get to Marion County for a court date on a separate
criminal matter. Reid testified that his partner was too sick to drive him to
court, so he had gone to get a friend to drive him. The friend drove for a while,
1
Reid also questions the legality of the traffic stop that resulted in his arrest, but he waived such arguments
by pleading guilty.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 4 of 6
but Reid testified that she suffered from schizophrenia and he believed that her
mental state made it unsafe for her to continue. Reid was pulled over while
driving back home after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in Marion County.
[9] Even if these facts are viewed as mitigating the nature of the offense, Reid’s
character standing alone easily supports the sentence imposed. Reid’s criminal
history is very lengthy and spans over two decades. In 1997, when Reid was
just fifteen years old, he committed misdemeanor selling tobacco to a minor in
Alabama.2 Reid accumulated several more convictions in Alabama over the
next ten years, including two counts misdemeanor domestic violence, reckless
driving, and attempt to elude police in 2000. In 2006, Reid was convicted of
driving while intoxicated, harassment, driving without a license, and
misdemeanor domestic violence. In 2007, Reid was convicted of two counts of
misdemeanor public intoxication and, yet again, misdemeanor domestic
violence. Reid’s criminal history in Indiana began in 2008, when he was
convicted of Class C felony battery by bodily waste. In 2010, Reid was
convicted of operating while intoxicated and resisting law enforcement, both as
Class A misdemeanors. In 2011, Reid was convicted of Class D felony
attempted residential entry, as well as intimidation and resisting law
enforcement, both Class A misdemeanors. In 2012, Reid was charged with
residential entry, theft, and intimidation, all Class D felonies, as well as Class A
2
There are no cases listed under the juvenile history section of Reid’s pre-sentence investigation report.
Although this offense took place when Reid was a minor, it is listed as an adult conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 5 of 6
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. It is apparent from the pre-
sentence investigation report that Reid was convicted of at least one of the 2012
charges, but it is unclear which one or ones. In 2014, Reid was convicted of
Class D felony theft and two counts of Class D felony operating while
intoxicated. In addition to his numerous convictions, Reid has repeatedly
violated the conditions of his probation and had his probation terminated
unsuccessfully.
[10] Reid’s argument that his criminal history is nonviolent does not hold water. He
has amassed numerous convictions for violent crimes. We are likewise
unpersuaded by Reid’s novel argument that his request to serve his sentence on
home detention was “altruistic” because it would be more cost-effective for the
county in light of Reid’s serious medical conditions. Appellant’s Brief at 10. In
light of Reid’s poor character, which is amply demonstrated by his lengthy
criminal history, we cannot conclude that his sentence of four and a half years
with four years executed and six months suspended to probation is
inappropriate.
[11] Judgment affirmed.
[12] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1611-CR-2554 | April 12, 2017 Page 6 of 6