Stephen Clayton Rainey 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 May 31 2017, 10:36 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
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stephen Clayton Rainey, May 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A01-1612-CR-2857
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D02-1407-F2-1005
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Stephen Clayton Rainey (Rainey), appeals his sentence
for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-
6.1(a).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Rainey raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether Rainey’s
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On July 18, 2014, Officer Lenny Reed of the City of Evansville Police
Department (Officer Reed) observed a red motorcycle, driven by Rainey, failing
to stop at a stop sign or use a turn signal. Officer Reed followed Rainey and
noticed him reaching into his waistband for a cigarette package and throwing it
away. The cigarette package was later determined to contain 9.97 grams of
methamphetamine. After he was pulled over for a traffic stop, Rainey
conceded that the cigarette package contained crystal meth which he had
purchased earlier that day. He admitted to being an addict who sold
methamphetamine to his friends. Rainey was also found to be in possession of
$875 in cash when he was arrested. At the time of his arrest, Rainey was out on
bond for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[5] On July 22, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Rainey with Count I,
dealing methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony; Count II, resisting law
enforcement, a Level 6 felony; and a habitual offender enhancement. On
October 24, 2016, the State amended the Information on Count I to reflect
Rainey’s prior dealing offense though the offense remained a Level 2 felony.
The State moved to dismiss Count II and the habitual offender enhancement on
October 27, 2016.
[6] Following a jury trial on October 31, 2016, Rainey was convicted of the lesser
included offense of possession of methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony. He
admitted to the enhancing circumstance of a prior conviction and the trial court
entered his conviction as a Level 4 felony. On November 18, 2016, the trial
court conducted a sentencing hearing. Imposing a ten-year executed sentence,
the trial court noted as aggravating factors Rainey’s extensive criminal history
and that he was on bond at the time of the instant offense. The trial court found
a mitigating circumstance in Rainey’s mental health problems.
[7] Rainey now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Rainey contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. Although a trial court may have acted within its
lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides
that an appellate 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 6
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.” The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether
this court regards a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on its
sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage
done to others, and a myriad of other facts that come to light in a given case.
Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
[9] We recognize that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature
has selected as an appropriate sentence of the crime committed.” Weiss v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1070, 1072 (Ind. 2006). Pursuant to the statute, a person convicted
of a Level 4 felony, shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and
twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.
Here, Rainey received an aggravated sentence of ten years.
[10] The nature of the Rainey’s offense does not disclose anything egregious or out
of the ordinary: a traffic stop revealed his possession of methamphetamine.
Nevertheless, Rainey’s character alone justifies the sentence imposed by the
trial court. A review of his criminal history reveals that Rainey has been in
continual contact with the criminal justice system for virtually his entire adult
life. Over the years, Rainey has amassed ten misdemeanor convictions for
driving while suspended (five times), possession of paraphernalia, resisting law
enforcement, possession of marijuana (twice), and carrying a handgun without
a license, and seven felony convictions for possession of methamphetamine
(four times), dealing methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and receiving
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 6
stolen property. Rainey has violated the terms of electronic home detention,
community corrections, and probation. At the time of sentencing, Rainey had
three separate cases pending for possession of methamphetamine, as a Class D
felony, possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and dealing
methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony.
[11] In support of his argument to reduce the sentence to the advisory term, Rainey
points to his mental health history and argues that “he is an addict with mental
health problems, not that he poses a danger to other individuals.” (Appellant’s
Br. p. 9). In so far Rainey now appears to argue that the trial court should have
awarded more weight to this recognized mitigating factor, we note that “a trial
court can not now be said to have abused its discretion in failing to properly
weigh such factors.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007),
clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Although Rainey claims his
conviction for possession of methamphetamine is a crime without a victim, this
argument is strongly contradicted by Rainey’s own statements. After being
pulled over by Officer Reed, he admitted to selling methamphetamine to his
friends. Moreover, his criminal history discloses convictions for possession of
methamphetamine and dealing methamphetamine.
[12] Accordingly, we conclude that Rainey has failed to carry his burden to establish
that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 6
CONCLUSION
[13] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court not inappropriately
sentenced Rainey to a sentence of ten years.
[14] Affirmed.
[15] Najam, J. and Bradford, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 6