Arturo Fuentes v. State of Indiana

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:
TERI A. FLORY GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Flory and Smith, Attorneys at Law Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Mar 21 2013, 9:36 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ARTURO FUENTES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 79A02-1208-CR-698
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Judge
Cause No. 79D01-1105-FA-10
March 21, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arturo Fuentes appeals his sentence following his convictions for dealing in
cocaine, as a Class A felony, and possession of cocaine, as a Class C felony, pursuant to a
guilty plea. Fuentes presents two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him.
2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 20, 2011, Fuentes’ wife, Sarah, found what she believed to be cocaine
among Fuentes’ personal belongings in their home in Lafayette. Accordingly, Sarah
telephoned the Lafayette Police Department to report the suspected drugs. When officers
arrived at the Fuentes home, Fuentes was not there, but Sarah gave them consent to
search the premises. Officers found several baggies of cocaine with an aggregate weight
of 434 grams; two handguns; a set of scales; and a large sum of cash. Officers
subsequently arrested Fuentes and found a baggie containing eleven grams of cocaine in
his mouth and a second baggie of cocaine in the center console of the vehicle he had been
driving.
The State charged Fuentes with dealing in cocaine, as a Class A felony, and
possession of cocaine, as a Class C felony. On March 13, 2012, Fuentes pleaded guilty
as charged without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the trial court identified the
following aggravating circumstances: Fuentes’ criminal history, including four petitions
to revoke probation and another pending petition; that he was placed in segregation while
2
incarcerated due to a rule violation; that a child was present in the house at the time of the
offenses; that guns were present in the house; that he used aliases; and that he has a
history of substance abuse. And the trial court identified the following mitigating
circumstances: his guilty plea without the benefit of a plea agreement; his work history;
and his incarceration could be a hardship on his dependents. The trial court found that
the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and imposed sentence as follows: thirty-two
years for dealing in cocaine, as a Class A felony, and six years for possession of cocaine,
as a Class C felony. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, for an
aggregate sentence of thirty-two years executed. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Issue One: Abuse of Discretion
Fuentes first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
him because the trial court ignored two proffered mitigators, namely, his show of remorse
and the fact that he was sexually abused as a child. Sentencing decisions rest within the
sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of
discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on other
grounds on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs if the
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id.One way in which a trial court may abuse its discretion is failing to enter a
sentencing statement at all. Other examples include entering a sentencing
statement that explains reasons for imposing a sentence—including a
finding of aggravating and mitigating factors if any—but the record does
not support the reasons, or the sentencing statement omits reasons that are
3
clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or the
reasons given are improper as a matter of law . . . .
[However, b]ecause the trial court no longer has any obligation to
“weigh” aggravating and mitigating factors against each other when
imposing a sentence, . . . a trial court can not now be said to have abused its
discretion in failing to “properly weigh” such factors.
Id. at 490-91.
Fuentes first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not
identify his remorse as a mitigating circumstance. In support of that contention, Fuentes
directs us to two letters he wrote to the trial court to express “his deep remorse for his
actions[.]” Brief of Appellant at 9. At sentencing, the trial court acknowledged having
reviewed “three or four letters” written by Fuentes, but the court declined to identify his
remorse as a mitigator. Sentencing transcript at 27. The trial court was not required to
find Fuentes’ remorse to be a mitigator, and we will not second-guess the trial court’s
assessment of Fuentes’ credibility on this issue. See Herrera v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1322,
1326-27 (Ind. 1997).
Next, Fuentes maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not
identify his sexual abuse as a child as a mitigator. Our supreme court has acknowledged
that “evidence about the defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the
belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are
attributable to a disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental problems, may be
less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.” Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d
697, 701 (Ind. 2000). Still, the court has “consistently held that evidence of a difficult
childhood warrants little, if any, mitigating weight.” Id. at 700. Here, the trial court
4
acknowledged having read the psychological and substance abuse evaluation of Fuentes
prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Wendt, which included information regarding Fuentes’ childhood
abuse. And the trial court recommended that Fuentes receive mental health treatment
while incarcerated. Fuentes has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion
when it did not identify this proffered mitigator.
Issue Two: Inappropriate Sentence
Finally, Fuentes contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offenses and his character. Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful
discretion in determining a sentence, Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana
Constitution “authorize [ ] independent appellate review and revision of a sentence
imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
(alteration original). This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B). Id. Revision of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant
to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and
his character. See App. R. 7(B); Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007). We assess the trial court’s recognition or non-recognition of aggravators and
mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was
inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). However, “a
defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e]
inappropriateness standard of review.” Roush, 875 N.E.2d at 812 (alteration original).
The Indiana Supreme Court more recently stated that “sentencing is principally a
discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable
5
deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). Indiana’s flexible
sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the
circumstances presented. See id. at 1224. The principal role of appellate review is to
attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. 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.
Fuentes does not present cogent argument to show that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses. Indeed, we cannot say that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of the fact that officers found more than 400 grams of
cocaine and two handguns in Fuentes’ home, where he lived with his young son.
Fuentes contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. In
support of that contention, Fuentes points out that: he used cocaine “to try to forget the
horrible abuse he suffered as a child”; he has been steadily employed and has supported
his family; he did not have the benefit of a plea agreement; his criminal history includes
only misdemeanors; and he was denied treatment for his mental health issues prior to
incarceration. Brief of Appellant at 11. But, as the State points out, Fuentes, who was
twenty-seven at the time of sentencing, has accrued ten misdemeanor convictions since
the age of sixteen. And, as the trial court observed, Fuentes has had four prior petitions
to revoke probation and had one pending petition at the time of sentencing. Thus,
Fuentes has not demonstrated any inclination or ability to lead a law-abiding life.
Finally, Fuentes does not direct us to any evidence that he had previously attempted to
6
get treatment for his substance abuse or underlying psychological problems. And his
substance abuse does not explain why he chose to deal in cocaine, rather than just use it.
We cannot say that Fuentes’ thirty-two year sentence is inappropriate in light of his
character.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
7