Tracy S. Coop v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jul 03 2018, 10:45 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tracy S. Coop, July 3, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-192
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1705-F6-2560
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Following a guilty plea, Tracy Coop was convicted of Level 6 Felony
possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to 730 days. On appeal, Coop
argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider her
cooperation with police and guilty plea as significant mitigating factors.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On the April 6, 2017, Columbus Police Department Officer Drake Maddix
initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle operating without functioning headlights or
tail lights. Coop was a passenger in the vehicle and was sitting in the front
passenger seat. Officer Maddix recognized Coop from prior encounters, and
due to his knowledge of her drug history, he requested a K-9 unit. Officer
Maddix questioned Coop about the presence of drugs in the car, but Coop
denied having any knowledge of drugs inside the vehicle. Shortly thereafter,
Officer Branch Schrader and his K-9 dog Argo arrived on the scene. Argo
alerted on the car, indicating that there may be narcotics inside.
[4] During a subsequent search of the vehicle, the officers located a white purse
directly below Coop’s front passenger seat. Inside the purse the officers found a
blue zipper pouch that contained an empty syringe, a white crystal substance in
a clear bag, a white pill, and a digital scale with “TC” on the back of it.
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 53. Coop again denied knowing anything about
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 2 of 5
the items found in the purse or the blue zippered pouch. Coop was arrested for
possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. A field test on the white crystal
substance was positive for methamphetamine. Upon further questioning, Coop
admitted that the substance was methamphetamine.
[5] The State charged Coop with Count I, Level 6 Felony possession of
methamphetamine, and Count II, Level 6 Felony possession of a syringe.
Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Coop pled guilty to Count I and the
State agreed to dismiss Count II. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on
December 14, 2017. The court found several aggravating circumstances but no
mitigating circumstances and sentenced Coop to 730 days in jail. Coop now
appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[6] Sentencing decisions are within the discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. 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.” Id. One of the ways in which a trial
may abuse its sentencing discretion is where the trial court’s sentencing
statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced
for consideration. McSchooler v. State, 15 N.E.3d 678, 684 (Ind. Ct. App 2014).
To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the
mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d 482 at 493. Here, Coop argues that the trial court
abused its sentencing discretion by failing to consider her guilty plea and her
cooperation with the police as mitigating factors.
[7] Coop has not established that her cooperation is a significant mitigating factor.
Indeed, the record shows that Coop lied to the police twice about her
knowledge of the presence of drugs. She only cooperated after her arrest and
after the field test was positive for methamphetamine. The facts demonstrate
that there was no real cooperation with the police.
[8] Coop also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not
consider her guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Even though Coop did not raise
her guilty plea as a mitigating factor before the sentencing court, this does not
prevent her from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Anglemyer v. State,
875 N.E.2d 218, 220 (Ind. 2007) opinion on reh’g. A guilty plea is deserving of
some mitigating weight; however, the significance of a guilty plea varies from
case to case. Id. A guilty plea is not significantly mitigating where, for
example, it fails to evince acceptance of responsibility or where the defendant
receives a substantial benefit, including dismissal of other charges, in return for
the plea. Id. at 221. A plea fails to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility
where the decision to plead was “more likely the result of pragmatism than
acceptance of responsibility and remorse.” Id.
[9] Coop’s plea was nothing more than a pragmatic decision based on the
overwhelming evidence of her guilt. The State’s evidence showed that a purse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 4 of 5
found directly below the front passenger seat where Coop was sitting contained
a white crystal substance, syringe, and a scale with Coop’s initials. After a field
test was positive for methamphetamine, Coop admitted to the illegal nature of
the substance. In addition, Coop received a benefit from her guilty plea in that
a Level 6 Felony charge was dismissed. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Coop.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 5 of 5