Natasha Peters v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Oct 19 2016, 8:09 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
Jennifer L. Koethe Gregory F. Zoeller
La Porte, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ian McLean
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Natasha Peters, October 19, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
46A03-1602-CR-452
v. Appeal from the La Porte Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael Bergerson,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D01-1506-F3-522
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1602-CR-452 | October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] Natasha Peters appeals the trial court’s twenty-year enhancement of her
sentence for being a habitual offender. She claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in its weighing of certain mitigating factors. Additionally, Peters asks
that we exercise our authority to review and revise her sentence to provide more
weight to those mitigating factors.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On June 25, 2015, the State charged Peters with robbery, a Level 3 felony.
Shortly after the State added a habitual offender allegation, Peters pled guilty as
charged. The plea agreement provided that Peters would receive ten years
executed for the robbery and the trial court would have discretion with regard
to the habitual offender enhancement. On January 28, 2016, the trial court
sentenced Peters to ten years for robbery, enhanced by twenty years for being a
habitual offender. The court ordered the entire sentence executed in the
“Indiana Department of Correction Therapeutic Community for chemically
addicted offenders”. Appendix at 52. The trial court indicated in its sentencing
order that Peters “shall have the right to file a Modification upon successful
completion of the Therapeutic Community Program, to serve the balance of
[her] sentence [in the] LaPorte County Community Correction Work Release
Program.” Id.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1602-CR-452 | October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4
[4] Initially, Peters argues that the trial court abused its discretion “in giving little
weight to the mitigating factors of [her] plea of guilty to the Habitual Offender
charge and the undue hardship on her family”.1 Appellant’s Brief at 8. This issue
is a nonstarter because we are proscribed from finding that a trial court abused
its discretion in the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. See
Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007) (“Because the trial court no
longer has any obligation to ‘weigh’ aggravating and mitigating factors against
each other when imposing a sentence, unlike the pre-Blakely statutory regime, a
trial court can not now be said to have abused its discretion in failing to
‘properly weigh’ such factors.”), modified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
[5] Peters also asks that we exercise our authority under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)
to revise her sentence “to give her additional weight for the mitigating factors of
pleading guilty and the undue hardship that her lengthy incarceration will
impose on her family and child”. Appellant’s Brief at 11.
[6] Pursuant to App. R. 7(B), we may independently review and revise a sentence
“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.” Our review in this regard is “very deferential” to the trial
court. See Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference
should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive
1
The trial court found three mitigating factors in this case: Peters’s guilty plea, the undue hardship on her
family, and her expression of remorse.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1602-CR-452 | October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4
light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and
lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous
traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d
111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Peters bears the burden of persuading us that her sentence
is inappropriate. See Conley, 972 N.E.2d at 876.
[7] Peters makes no attempt to address the nature of the offense or her character.
In fact, her brief is entirely devoid of any mention of the facts underlying her
robbery conviction. And she does not discuss how her guilty plea or the
hardship on her family relate to the nature of the offense or her character.
Accordingly, she has waived this issue for our review. See Day v. State, 898
N.E.2d 471, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see also Ford v. State, 718 N.E.2d 1104,
1107 n.1 (Ind. 1999).
[8] Judgment affirmed.
[9] Bradford, J. and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1602-CR-452 | October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4