Francisco Gallardo-Cortes 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 Jun 14 2019, 9:57 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
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Francisco Gallardo-Cortes, June 14, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-26
v. Appeal from the LaGrange
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa M. Bowen-
Appellee-Plaintiff. Slaven, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
44D01-1806-F2-4
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Francisco Gallardo-Cortes appeals his sentence following his conviction for
dealing in cocaine, as a Level 3 felony, pursuant to a guilty plea. Gallardo-
Cortes raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 6, 2018, Indiana State Police Trooper Andrew C. Baldwin conducted
a traffic stop of Gallardo-Cortes. Trooper Baldwin noticed an odor of alcohol
coming from Gallardo-Cortes. He also noticed that Gallardo-Cortes’ speech
was slurred, his eyes were glossy, and he demonstrated poor manual dexterity.
Gallardo-Cortes consented to a certified chemical breath test, which indicated
that Gallardo-Cortes had an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.128 gram of
alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Trooper Baldwin also discovered that Gallardo-
Cortes had never had a valid driver’s license.
[3] Trooper Baldwin arrested Gallardo-Cortes, impounded his vehicle, and
conducted an inventory search of the vehicle. During the search, Trooper
Baldwin found a bag that contained a “white powder substance” underneath
the driver’s seat. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 6. He also found another “white
rock substance” behind the CD player along with cash, baggies, and a scale. Id.
Both substances were later determined to be cocaine. In total, Trooper Baldwin
discovered approximately sixty-three grams of cocaine in Gallardo-Cortes’ car.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[4] The State charged Gallardo-Cortes with dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony;
operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as a Class A misdemeanor; operating a
vehicle without ever having received a driver’s license, as a Class C
misdemeanor; operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to
at least 0.08 gram of alcohol but less than 0.15 gram of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath, as a Class C misdemeanor; speeding, as a Class C infraction; improper
lane usage, as a Class C infraction; and possession of an open alcoholic
container, as a Class C infraction. Gallardo-Cortes pleaded guilty to dealing in
cocaine, as a Level 3 felony. In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed the
remaining charges. Following a hearing, the trial court accepted Gallardo-
Cortes’ guilty plea. The court then sentenced Gallardo-Cortes to eight years in
the Department of Correction, with six years executed and two years suspended
to probation. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Gallardo-Cortes contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides
that “[t]he Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute 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.” This court has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the
starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
And the Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 3 of 6
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[6] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of
the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive 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).
[7] The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is three years to sixteen years, with an
advisory sentence of nine years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b) (2018). Here, the
trial court did not identify any mitigators, and the court expressly found that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 4 of 6
there were no aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, the trial court imposed
a slightly reduced sentence of eight years, with six years executed and two years
suspended to probation.
[8] Gallardo-Cortes contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense because he “cooperated with the authorities” and because
his “possession of drugs was driven by his desire to support his own drug
addiction.” Appellant’s Br. at 9, 10. And Gallardo-Cortes asserts that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because he only has one prior
misdemeanor conviction, his incarceration will be a hardship on his family, he
expressed remorse, and he took responsibility for his actions when he pleaded
guilty. Id. at 12.
[9] However, Gallardo-Cortes has not met his burden to demonstrate that his
sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Gallardo-
Cortes admitted to possessing at least ten grams of cocaine, which is an amount
well above that required to support his Level 3 felony conviction. 1 See I.C. § 35-
48-4-1(d) (the offense is a Level 3 felony if “the amount of the drug involved is
at least five (5) grams but less than ten (10) grams”). As for his character,
1
The State contends that Gallardo-Cortes’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
because he possessed sixty-three grams of cocaine, which was “more than 12 times the quantity needed . . . to
support a Level 3 felony offense[.]” Appellee’s Br. at 8. However, at the hearing on his guilty plea, Gallardo-
Cortes acknowledged that he was originally charged with a Level 2 felony “because of the amount of cocaine
that was in his car.” Tr. Vol. II at 11. Accordingly, Gallardo-Cortes only admitted that he had possessed
enough cocaine to support the Level 2 felony charge, which is at least ten grams. See I.C. § 35-48-4-1(e).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 5 of 6
Gallardo-Cortes admitted to a long history of substance-abuse problems for
which he has never sought treatment, which reflects poorly on his character. 2
[10] In considering the appropriateness of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B),
appellate courts may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by
the trial judge, including the fact that a portion of the sentence was suspended.
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). Here, Gallardo-Cortes’
total sentence was not only below the nine-year advisory sentence for a Level 3
felony, but two years of his sentence were suspended to probation.
Accordingly, we cannot say that Gallardo-Cortes’ sentence is inappropriate.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
2
To the extent Gallardo-Cortes contends that the trial court should have “consider[ed] substance abuse
treatment in lieu” of incarceration, we note that the trial court specifically recommended Gallardo-Cortes for
the Purposeful Incarceration Program. Appellant’s Br. at 12. The court further indicated that it would
consider a sentence modification upon Gallardo-Cortes’ successful completion of that program.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-26 | June 14, 2019 Page 6 of 6