Darren A. Shelton 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 Dec 18 2019, 10:24 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Ian McLean, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darren A Shelton, December 18, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1865
v. Appeal from the
Henry Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Bob A. Witham
Trial Court Cause No.
33C01-1806-F4-12
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] Following his guilty plea to dealing in methamphetamine, Darren A. Shelton
was sentenced by the trial court to twenty years imprisonment, the maximum
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 1 of 4
sentence set forth in the Defendant’s plea agreement. Contending that his
sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his
character, Shelton now appeals.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Police initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle in which Shelton was a passenger. At
the time, police believed Shelton had been involved in three prior controlled
buys for methamphetamine. Police arrested Shelton on a warrant for charges
stemming from those buys.
[4] During a search of Shelton incident to his arrest, police discovered 10.8 grams
of methamphetamine in his pocket. A search of Shelton’s home revealed more
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Shelton with
three counts of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6
felony possession of a syringe, and a Class C misdemeanor possession of
paraphernalia.
[5] Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Shelton agreed to plead guilty to
the Level 2 felony in exchange for dismissal of all remaining counts. In
exchange, the State agreed (1) that it would not file an habitual offender
enhancement; (2) that Shelton’s sentence would be capped at 20 years, and (3)
that Shelton was free to argue for placement in the Recovery While
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4
Incarcerated program. After hearing testimony and arguments, the trial court
ordered Shelton to serve 20 years in prison and declined to recommend
Recovery While Incarcerated.
[6] Shelton now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[7] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The
advisory sentence for a Level 2 felony is seventeen and one-half years with a
range of ten to thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Shelton's twenty-year
sentence is higher than the advisory sentence for his offense.
[8] In determining the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory sentence,
we look to both character of the offender and the nature of the offense.
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The significance
of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character varies based on the
gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.
Id.
[9] Shelton’s criminal record includes convictions for burglary, aggravated battery,
and escape. Each of these offenses involves violence or the high risk of violence
and evading the authority of the law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4
[10] Shelton’s criminal history is extensive and dates back over twenty years. It
includes many substance-related crimes such as possession of marijuana,
possession of paraphernalia, and multiple driving while intoxicated and public
intoxication offenses. These crimes illustrate his character and indicate a
preference for illegal conduct over a sober and law-abiding life. Shelton was
convicted of trafficking in Kentucky and given a five-year sentence in that state.
After his most recent release from the DOC, Shelton committed the offense in
this case and another offense. When he was sentenced here, Shelton was facing
a petition to revoke his probation and a second criminal prosecution. Shelton
has served time in prison, in work release, and probation, and he has violated
the terms of each. Accordingly, we cannot say Shelton’s sentence is
inappropriate based on his character.
[11] Nor can we say that Shelton’s sentence inappropriate to his offense. The
amount of methamphetamine Shelton possessed in committing this offense falls
into the most severe category under the statute. Shelton’s offense was not
minimal, excusable, or deserving of a sentence revision.
[12] Shelton’s sentence is not inappropriate based on either his character or the
nature of his offense.
[13] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4