Aaliyah S. Craft v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 24, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1383
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2018, 6:23 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Thomas C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Aaliyah S. Craft, October 24, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1383 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1710-F6-1147

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Aaliyah S. Craft appeals her one-year aggregate sentence for Level 6 felony

maintaining a common nuisance 1 and Class A misdemeanor possession of

marijuana. 2 She argues her sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the

offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 3, 2017, officers executed a search warrant at Craft’s residence,

where she lived with her boyfriend. In Craft’s bedroom, officers found two

pounds of marijuana, digital scales, baggies, a glass smoking pipe, burnt ashes,

and over $8000. Craft’s boyfriend admitted he sells marijuana from the

residence, and Craft admitted half of the marijuana belonged to her.

[3] On October 10, 2017, the State charged Craft with Level 6 felony maintaining a

common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On

October 22, 2017, while out on bond for these charges, Craft was arrested and

charged with Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On October 30,

2017, Craft entered a plea agreement with the State wherein she pled guilty as

charged and agreed to be placed in the drug court diversion program. Craft was

scheduled to begin the drug court diversion program on October 31, 2017, but

she did not appear.

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(b)(3) (2017). 2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(b) (2017).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 5 [4] On November 6, 2017, Craft failed to appear at a Drug Court status hearing,

and the trial court issued a warrant for her arrest. Officers arrested Craft on

April 6, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the trial court sentenced Craft to one year for

Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance and 180 days for Class A

misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The court ordered those served

concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of one year.

Discussion and Decision [5] We may revise a sentence imposed by the trial court if it is inappropriate in light

of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State,

891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)).

Our review is deferential to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to

determine whether the appellant’s sentence is inappropriate, not whether some

other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876

(Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators

found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record.

Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant bears

the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). When reviewing a sentence, we “focus on the

forest - the aggregate sentence - rather than the trees - consecutive or

concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual

count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [6] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The

advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a sentencing range of six

months to two and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2016). A person

convicted of a Class A misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of

not more than one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court imposed an

aggregate one-year sentence.

[7] “[T]he defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his

sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.”

Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

Here, Craft argues her offenses were not egregious. Considering the quantity

of marijuana found at Craft’s residence, as well as other items to suggest dealing

in marijuana, we cannot say the nature of Craft’s offense was so unremarkable

that the advisory sentence was inappropriate. See Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d

586, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding advisory sentence not inappropriate

based in part that “nothing stands out about the nature of this offense”), trans.

denied.

[8] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the

appellant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007). The significance of criminal history in assessing a defendant’s

character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in

relation to the current offense. Id. Craft’s criminal history is sparse, but her

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 5 other conviction is for an offense committed while on bail for the current

offense. Craft argues she is not a danger to society and a shorter executed

sentence 3 “may scare her straight.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.)

[9] While all these factors weigh favorably on her character, she also squandered

an opportunity to participate in Drug Court, and her scores on the aptitude tests

given to her as part of the Pre-Sentence Investigation indicate she is at a high

risk to re-offend. We cannot say her sentence is inappropriate based on her

character. See Holt v. State, 62 N.E.3d 462, 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (advisory

sentence not inappropriate considering Holt’s “complete lack of respect for the

court and the law”).

Conclusion [10] Craft’s one-year sentence for Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance

and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana is not inappropriate based

on the nature of her offense or her character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

3 We note the trial court ordered only 183 days of Craft’s sentence executed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 5