Adam Barton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 30, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-810
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 30 2018, 10:01 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Stacy R. Uliana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Bargersville, Indiana Attorney General

Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Adam Barton, August 30, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-810 v. Appeal from the Steuben Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Allen N. Wheat, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 76C01-1608-F5-551

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Adam Barton appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court following his

guilty plea to level 5 felony manufacturing methamphetamine and level 6 felony

possession of methamphetamine. He asserts that the trial court abused its

discretion during sentencing. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 16, 2016, thirty-six-year-old Barton and his girlfriend were

manufacturing methamphetamine in the bedroom of an apartment Barton

shared with his seventy-year-old father. During the manufacturing process, an

explosion occurred causing a fire to break out. Barton and his girlfriend fled the

scene, leaving Barton’s father in the apartment. Barton and his girlfriend did

not pull a fire alarm or alert any residents of the apartment building that a fire

had started. Police who responded to the scene found Barton’s father in the

apartment and escorted him out of the building to safety. Firefighters and

investigators found numerous items known to be associated with

methamphetamine manufacturing inside the apartment. They also found two

vials of white powder that later tested positive for methamphetamine. The fire

caused significant damage, and numerous residents of the apartment complex

were displaced during the cleanup process.

[3] On August 10, 2016, the State charged Barton with level 5 felony

manufacturing methamphetamine and level 6 felony possession of

methamphetamine. On February 12, 2018, Barton pled guilty to both counts.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 2 of 6 During sentencing, the trial court found Barton’s guilty plea to be a mitigating

factor. The court found Barton’s criminal history, which included a recently

dismissed additional charge for manufacturing methamphetamine in the same

county, to be an aggravating factor. The court further found the nature and

circumstances of the crimes (explosion causing significant damage) and the fact

that he occupied a position of trust with the property owner (his father) to be

aggravating factors. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence with one

year suspended. The court further determined that Barton was eligible for

participation in community corrections. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] Barton argues that the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing.

Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are

reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482,

490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. 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. A trial court abuses its discretion if it:

(1) fails “to enter a sentencing statement at all”; (2) enters “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”; (3) enters a sentencing statement that “omits reasons that are clearly

supported by the record and advanced for consideration”; or (4) considers

reasons that “are improper as a matter of law.” Id. at 490-91. However, the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 3 of 6 relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found, or those which

should have been found, is not subject to review for abuse of discretion. Id.

[5] Barton’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by

improperly considering as an aggravating factor that he violated a “position of

trust” simply because he manufactured methamphetamine in an apartment he

lived in with his father. Sentencing Order at 2. “The position of trust

aggravator is frequently cited by sentencing courts where an adult has

committed an offense against a minor and there is at least an inference of the

adult’s authority over the minor.” Rodriguez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 551, 555 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2007). However, we have also found a position of trust to have been

violated between cohabitating adults. See Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208,

211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (2012). As a general matter, “[a] position

of trust exists where a defendant has ‘more than a casual relationship with the

victim and has abused the trust resulting from that relationship.’” Id. (quoting

Rodriguez, 868 N.E.2d at 555).

[6] Barton clearly had more than a casual relationship with his father and he

abused the trust resulting from that relationship by choosing to manufacture

methamphetamine in his father’s apartment. As noted by the trial court, Barton

“was in an apartment … that his Father was leasing and I doubt very much if

Dad knew that he was going to be cooking methamphetamine … [he] wouldn’t

have allowed him to enter.…” Tr. Vol. 2 at 22. Moreover, we think the trial

court’s consideration of Barton’s conduct in the context of the father-son

relationship was also an additional consideration of the nature and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 4 of 6 circumstances of the crime, which is a proper aggravator. See McCann v. State,

749 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind. 2001) (noting that the “nature and circumstances”

of a crime is a proper aggravating circumstance). During sentencing, the State

argued that the court should consider that Barton was manufacturing

methamphetamine in an apartment that he shared with his seventy-year-old

father and that, when the explosion occurred, and a fire broke out, Barton

simply fled the scene leaving his father to fend for himself. The trial court

found this behavior to be particularly heinous. The trial court’s consideration

of these facts during sentencing was not an abuse of discretion.

[7] Further, even if a trial court relies on an improper aggravator, remand is

unnecessary if the appellate court is confident that the trial court would have

imposed the same sentence regardless. See Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491

(remand for resentencing appropriate if we cannot say with confidence that trial

court would have imposed same sentence had it properly considered reasons

that enjoy support in record). The trial court here found additional aggravating

factors which Barton does not challenge and, more significantly, Barton’s total

executed sentence on both counts is two years, which is well below the

maximum he could have received for his level 5 and a level 6 felony

convictions. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (the sentencing range for a level 5

felony is between one and six years); Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (the sentencing

range for a level 6 felony is between six months and three years); but see Ind.

Code § 35-50-1-2(d) (limiting total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment for

crimes arising out of an episode of criminal conduct). We are confident that the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 5 of 6 trial court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of its finding that

Barton violated a position of trust, and thus we affirm his sentence.

[8] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-810 | August 30, 2018 Page 6 of 6