Alandus D. James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 19 2015, 10:00 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any 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
Peter D. Todd Gregory F. Zoeller
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
William Hackl Brainard
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alandus D. James, February 19, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
20A03-1405-CR-173
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court; The Honorable George W.
Biddlecome, Judge; The Honorable
State of Indiana, Thomas Murto, Magistrate;
Appellee-Plaintiff. 20D03-1206-FD-765
20D03-1208-CM-1493
20D03-1208-CM-1494
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1405-CR-173 | February 19, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Alandus D. James appeals the court’s order that he serve a thirty-month
sentence for class D felony residential entry1 consecutive to two concurrent
eighteen-month sentences for Class D felony battery on a child2 and Class D
felony strangulation.3
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History4
[3] On June 21, 2012, Rhonelle Murphy discovered James, whom she knew,
entering her residence through a window. Once inside, James began punching
Murphy in the face with his fist. M.A.W., Murphy’s daughter, ran to help her
and begged James to stop. At some point, James hit M.A.W. instead of
Murphy. James grabbed Murphy by the neck and began to strangle her. When
James let go of Murphy’s neck, he started kicking her in the face. Murphy and
M.A.W. fled to the bathroom. James followed them and continued to punch
Murphy with his fists. James finally left, and Murphy called the police. James
was still outside when the police arrived. When Murphy identified James as
her assailant, he tried to use the alias “Aljimar Gregory” but eventually
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5 (2011).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2011).
3
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-9 (2011).
4
The court also sentenced James in the same cause for being an habitual offender, for misdemeanor battery
under cause number 20D03-1208-CM-1493, and for possession of marijuana under cause number 20D03-
1208-CM-1494. James does not challenge those sentences.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1405-CR-173 | February 19, 2015 Page 2 of 4
admitted his real name. (Tr. at 285-86, 336.) The police determined James had
outstanding warrants and arrested him.
[4] On June 27, 2012, the State charged James with Class D felony battery on a
child; Class D felony strangulation; and Class D felony residential entry. A
jury found James guilty of the charges. The trial court ordered James to serve
eighteen months for the battery concurrent with eighteen months for the
strangulation, and to serve thirty months for residential entry consecutive to
those concurrent sentences.
Discussion and Decision
[5] James asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when ordering the
sentence for residential entry to be served consecutive to the other two
sentences.
[6] Whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is within the trial
court’s sound discretion and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.
Gellenbeck v. State, 918 N.E.2d 706, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The trial court
abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances. Id.
[7] “[T]he court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served
concurrently or consecutively. The court may consider the: (1) aggravating
circumstances . . . and (2) mitigating circumstances . . . in making a
determination under this subsection. . . .” Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c). “To
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1405-CR-173 | February 19, 2015 Page 3 of 4
impose consecutive sentences, the trial court must find at least one aggravating
circumstance.” Jones v. State, 705 N.E.2d 452, 455 (Ind. 1999).
[8] Although the court did not explicitly state a reason for imposing consecutive
sentences, it is evident the court believed the maximum sentence of forty-eight
months was “required” because “[t]here are issues of violence in every one of
these counts . . . .” (Tr. at 529.) After so stating, the court reviewed James’
criminal history, noting violence in each of those crimes as well. The court
determined James’ violence and the “lack of success in probationary area” were
aggravators, (id. at 532), and noted the mitigators were not enough to reduce
the sentence from forty-eight months. (Id.) Thus, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it ordered James to serve the residential entry sentence
consecutive to the concurrent battery and strangulation sentences. See, e.g.,
Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 821 (Ind. 2002) (factors used to enhance
sentence can also be cited to impose consecutive sentences). Accordingly, we
affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1405-CR-173 | February 19, 2015 Page 4 of 4