James L. Cantrell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 29 2018, 11:12 am
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
Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James L. Cantrell, Jr., March 29, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
03A05-1710-CR-2381
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1612-F2-6440
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] James L. Cantrell, Jr. appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony, and dealing in a narcotic drug, as a
Level 3 felony. He raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial
court abused its discretion when it sentenced him.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On October 11, 2016, a confidential informant (“CI”) for the Bartholomew
County Joint Narcotics Enforcement Team purchased twenty-eight grams of
methamphetamine from Cantrell in exchange for $975. On October 27, the CI
purchased 86.49 grams of methamphetamine from Cantrell in exchange for
$3,200. And, on November 9, the CI purchased 12 grams of a substance from
Cantrell that Cantrell claimed to be heroin in exchange for $1,500. However,
the results of a field test indicated that the substance was not heroin but was,
instead, fentanyl. During all three of the transactions, the CI was equipped
with an audio/video recording device and electronic recording equipment in
order to record the transactions.
[4] On December 2, the State charged Cantrell with two counts of dealing in
methamphetamine, as Level 2 felonies (Counts I and II), and one count of
dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 2 felony (Count III). On July 17, 2017,
Cantrell entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to
plead guilty to one count of dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 6
and one count of dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 3 felony. In exchange
for this plea, the State dismissed Count II. The plea agreement was silent as to
the length of the sentences, but it provided that the sentences shall run
concurrent with one another. On August 31, the trial court accepted Cantrell’s
guilty plea, entered judgment of conviction, and held a sentencing hearing.
[5] During the sentencing hearing, Cantrell asked the court for a recommendation
for purposeful incarceration, which the court denied. The trial court identified
as aggravating circumstances the fact that Cantrell has a lengthy criminal
history, which includes eighteen felony convictions and twelve misdemeanor
convictions; that Cantrell had previously been placed on probation on two
occasions, both of which were revoked; that Cantrell had used alcohol and
drugs while incarcerated; and that he had violated jail rules while the current
case was pending. The trial court found no mitigating circumstances. The trial
court sentenced Cantrell to concurrent sentences of sixteen years in the
Department of Correction.1 This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Cantrell contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
him because the trial court failed to identify two mitigating circumstances. As
our Supreme Court has stated:
1
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5, the sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is three to sixteen
years. The advisory sentence is nine years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 6
Sentencing is left to the discretion of the trial court, and abuse of
that discretion arises by the court: (1) failing to enter a
sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement in
which the aggravating and mitigating factors are not supported
by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that does not
include reasons that are clearly supported by the record and
advanced for consideration; or (4) entering a sentencing
statement in which the reasons provided in the statement are
improper as a matter of law.
Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171, 193 (Ind. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).
[7] Cantrell first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
him because the trial court failed “to give any mitigating weight to Cantrell’s
guilty plea[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 8. It is well established that “a defendant who
pleads guilty deserves to have mitigating weight extended to the guilty plea in
return.” Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ind. 2004). However, it is just as
well established that “the significance of a guilty plea as a mitigating factor
varies from case to case,” and “a guilty plea may not be significantly mitigating
when . . . the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for the plea.”
Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. 2007). Similarly, a guilty plea is
not necessarily a mitigating factor “where evidence against the defendant is so
strong that the decision to plead guilty is merely pragmatic.” Amalfitano v. State,
956 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.
[8] We agree with the State that Cantrell received a substantial benefit in exchange
for his plea because the State agreed to dismiss one count of dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 2 felony. That charge could have resulted in as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 6
much as an additional thirty years to his sentence.2 Further, while the plea
agreement was silent as to the length of the sentences, the agreement provided
that the sentences shall run concurrent with one another. We also agree with
the State that its evidence against Cantrell was strong. All three transactions
between Cantrell and the CI, which served as the basis for the State’s charges,
were recorded using audio/visual recording equipment. Accordingly, we
conclude that Cantrell has not met his burden on appeal to show that his guilty
plea was a significant mitigating circumstance, and we cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion when it did not identify his plea as such.
[9] Cantrell next asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to
consider his “cooperation with the police” when he “chose to speak with police,
waiving his right to remain silent” as a mitigating factor. Appellant’s Br. at 8.
However, Cantrell did not raise this as a mitigating factor at the sentencing
hearing. A “trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a
mitigating factor that was not raised at sentencing.” Anglemeyer, 875 N.E.2d at
220. Because Cantrell did not raise his cooperation with police as a mitigating
factor at his sentencing hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
it failed to consider it. We affirm Cantrell’s sentence.
[10] Affirmed.
2
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-4.5, the sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten to thirty
years. The advisory sentence is seventeen and one-half years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 5 of 6
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1710-CR-2381 | March 29, 2018 Page 6 of 6