Aaron Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 19, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-411
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 19 2018, 8:29 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 R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Aaron Clark, July 19, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-411 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan N. Appellee-Plaintiff Cleary, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D01-1607-F5-52

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-411 | July 19, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Aaron Clark appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he pleaded

guilty to Level 5 Felony Dealing in a Narcotic.1 Clark contends that the

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Finding that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts [2] Clark had an arrangement with Stephanie Harmon to do odd jobs in exchange

for permission to live in a small room in the back of a building in

Lawrenceburg. In June 2016, Stephanie contacted the doctor of her mother,

Brenda Harmon, pretended to be Brenda, and requested a refill of Brenda’s

hydrocodone prescription. At Stephanie’s direction, Clark pretended to be

Brenda’s son, picked up the prescription from the doctor’s office, filled the

prescription at a Kroger pharmacy, and delivered the hydrocodone to

Stephanie. Clark knew that Brenda would not receive the medication because

Stephanie would either sell, trade, or use it. He admitted that he had traded

prescriptions with Stephanie in the past.

[3] On July 22, 2016, the State charged Clark with multiple offenses, including

Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic; it later added an enhancement alleging that

Clark was an habitual offender. On October 23, 2017, Clark and the State

entered into a plea agreement. The agreement provided that Clark would plead

guilty to the Level 5 felony in exchange for the dismissal of all the other

1 Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2; Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-411 | July 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5 charges, including the habitual offender enhancement. Sentencing was left to

the discretion of the trial court. On November 20, 2017, the trial court

sentenced Clark to six years imprisonment, with two years suspended to

probation. Clark now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Clark’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is inappropriate in light of

the nature of the offense and his character pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule

7(B). In considering an argument under Rule 7(B), we must “conduct [this]

review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial

court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven

the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v.

State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d

1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).

[5] Clark was convicted of a Level 5 felony, for which he faced a term of one to six

years imprisonment, with an advisory term of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

6(b). The trial court imposed a six-year term, with two years suspended, for an

executed sentence of four years imprisonment.

[6] With respect to the nature of the offense, Clark pretended to be Brenda’s son,

picked up the prescription from her doctor’s office, filled it at a pharmacy, and

gave the hydrocodone to Stephanie, knowing that she would sell, trade, or use

it.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-411 | July 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [7] With respect to Clark’s character, we note that even at a relatively young age of

thirty-one years, he has a substantial criminal history that spans well over a

decade. His prior convictions include six felonies and four misdemeanors, as

well as six probation violations and a community corrections violation. Many

of Clark’s convictions are drug-related. He has also been terminated from

court-ordered drug and mental health treatment. Clark requests leniency, but

he has been afforded leniency in the past and has been unable or unwilling to

change his behavior.

[8] Clark emphasizes that he has five minor children. While that is true, he does

not pay child support because of a disability. He states that he has severe

medical and mental health issues and maintains that those issues will

substantially limit his ability and/or motivation to commit future crimes. It

may be true that he has many challenges, but he has had those challenges for

many years and his criminal behavior has continued unabated. Clark has also

not established that his conditions are untreatable during incarceration. Indeed,

the trial court required as a condition of probation that Clark participate with

drug and alcohol treatment.

[9] It is undeniable that Clark has faced many hardships in his life and there are

many substantial obstacles in his path. But given his significant criminal history

and his past failure to take advantage of leniency in sentencing, we cannot say

that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and his character.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-411 | July 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-411 | July 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5