Abigail Begeman v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Sep 20 2012, 9:23 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the
CLERK
case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NICOLE A. ZELIN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Greenfield, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ABIGAIL BEGEMAN, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 30A01-1204-CR-163
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE HANCOCK SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Dan E. Marshall, Judge
Cause No. 30D02-1203-CM-000394
September 20, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARTEAU, Senior Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Abigail Begeman appeals the sentence she received for her convictions of battery,
a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2009); resisting law enforcement, a
Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3 (2011); disorderly conduct, a Class B
misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3 (2006); and public intoxication, a Class B
misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3 (2001). We affirm.
ISSUE
Begeman presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether her
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the
offender.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At approximately 6 a.m. on March 22, 2012, Begeman and some friends were
swimming in a creek and boisterously celebrating Begeman’s release from jail just a few
hours earlier. When officers appeared on the scene, Begeman appeared to be intoxicated
and admitted to drinking. The officers asked Begeman to calm down but she continued
yelling and then punched one of her friends in the face. When the officers attempted to
handcuff Begeman, she pulled her hands away and curled into the fetal position with her
hands beneath her. When the officers brought in a canine unit, Begeman complied with
their requests.
Based upon this incident, Begeman was charged with battery, resisting law
enforcement, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. At her initial hearing the day
2
after the incident, Begeman pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to an
aggregate executed sentence of one year. It is from this sentence that she now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Begeman contends that her sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a sentence
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of
the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). However, “we must and should exercise
deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to
give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866
N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A defendant bears the burden of persuading the
appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218
(2007).
To assess the appropriateness of the sentence, we look first to the statutory range
established for the classes of the offenses. Here the offenses are Class A misdemeanors,
for which the maximum sentence is one year, and Class B misdemeanors, for which the
maximum sentence is 180 days. Ind. Code §§ 35-50-3-2 (1977), 35-50-3-3 (1977).
Begeman was sentenced to one year on each of the two Class A misdemeanors and 180
days on each of the two Class B misdemeanors, with all of the sentences to be served
concurrently.
3
Next, we look to the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. The
nature of the current offenses is that Begeman was intoxicated. Her lack of self-control,
presumably due to her intoxication, resulted in her disturbing area residents at an early
hour, injuring a friend, and resisting the police.
With regard to the character of the offender, these charges disclose Begeman’s
propensity for violence, even toward her friends, as well as her disrespect for lawful
authority. In addition, Begeman exercised extremely poor judgment and character by
becoming intoxicated and committing these offenses a mere four hours after she had been
released from jail on other charges. The materials on appeal do not reveal Begeman’s
precise criminal history, but she admits to being released from jail just four hours prior to
this arrest. See Tr. pp. 10-11. At the sentencing hearing, both the judge and Begeman
referred to her criminal history, and the judge specifically indicated that with regard to
Begeman’s previous conviction he had sentenced her to only half of the maximum
sentence even though the State had requested the maximum. The judge further told
Begeman, “But you also don’t stay out of trouble. . . . [M]a’am you need to realize that if
you get in trouble in this county your track record is so bad the consequences are severe.”
Id. at 13.
Although Begeman pleaded guilty to these charges, it appears to have been a
pragmatic decision rather than an acceptance of responsibility. See Wells v. State, 836
N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (guilty plea does not rise to level of significant
mitigation where evidence against defendant is such that decision to plead guilty is
4
merely pragmatic one), trans. denied. Moreover, the trial court stated it had already
shown her leniency by not giving her the maximum sentence when she pleaded guilty to
her previous charges. Tr. p. 12.
Additionally, Begeman suggests that her “medical condition” and “need for
medical treatment” should be considered. The medical issue she is apparently referring
to is treatment for a broken jaw she sustained in a car accident. She indicated to the court
that there is metal in her mouth that is overdue to be removed. However, Begeman had a
chance at the time she committed these charges – having been released from jail only
four hours earlier – to use this opportunity of freedom to take care of things in her life she
had neglected, such as medical care, and she chose instead to become intoxicated and
cause problems in her community. This, again, shows poor decision-making on her part.
Finally, Begeman asserts that her need for substance abuse treatment should be
taken into account. It is apparent from her statements at the sentencing hearing that she
has known for some time that she has a substance abuse problem but has done nothing to
attempt to treat it until her arrest for the instant offenses. The judge noted his skepticism
when he stated, “You understand that my acceptance of your conversion to this position
since it’s less than twenty-four hours old, you really can’t convince me to send you out
on probation ma’am. It just . . . isn’t supported.” Id. In support of his decision, the
judge noted that Begeman “couldn’t go four hours” without drinking and getting into
trouble. Id. It appears that Begeman could have previously obtained help for her
5
substance abuse issues and re-directed her life path; however, she chose not to and
instead continued her pattern of substance abuse and criminal behavior.
Begeman has not carried her burden of persuading this Court that her sentence has
met the inappropriateness standard of review. See Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494. We do
not find her sentence to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her
character.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Begeman’s sentence is not
inappropriate.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
6