MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 12 2015, 10:13 am 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 William Byer, Jr. Gregory F. Zoeller Byer & Byer Attorney General of Indiana Anderson, Indiana Graham T. Youngs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Antwaun D. Moody, March 12, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 48A02-1408-CR-548 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court Cause No. 48C04-1211-FB-2090 State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Case Summary
[1] Antwaun Moody appeals his aggregate eighteen-year executed sentence for
dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony; possession of a controlled substance, a
Class D felony; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting
law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The issue is whether Moody’s eighteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of
his offenses and character.
Facts
[3] On November 2, 2012, Officers Chad Boynton and Chris Frazier of the
Anderson Police Department responded to complaints of high foot traffic
around the apartment of Adrienne Jones. The apartment complex manager
explained that foot traffic was particularly heavy when Moody, who held no
leasehold interest in the property, was at Jones’s apartment, and the manager
speculated that Moody was involved in selling illicit drugs. Before the dispatch,
Officers Boynton and Frazier learned that Moody had an outstanding warrant
for his arrest.
[4] Officers Boynton and Frazier were in the parking lot across from Jones’s
apartment and, upon Moody’s departure from the unit, Officer Frazier called
Moody by name and instructed him to stop. Moody fled, and other officers
were called to secure the perimeter. Moody was caught a few blocks away.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Detective Bill Richardson later relayed that before Moody was caught, he saw
Moody briefly crouch down by a garage. After Moody fled the garage,
Detective Richardson entered and found $935 in cash, which the garage owners
confirmed was not theirs.
[5] After Moody was apprehended, Officer Frazier contacted Jones, who met
Officer Frazier at her apartment and signed a waiver permitting officers to
search her apartment. Officer Boynton and Officer Matthew Jarrett searched
the apartment and found two metal pots containing white liquid residue, glass
cookware bearing white residue, digital scales, a “large amount” (121.1 grams
total) of a yellow, rock-like substance that tested positive for cocaine, as well as
white powder in a plastic bag that did not test positive for cocaine. Tr. p. 58.
Three alprazolam pills and 1.22 grams of marijuana were found on the
kitchen’s countertop. Three firearms—two loaded—were found in the
apartment. The search also yielded a black wallet containing Moody’s
identification. A fingerprint was recovered from the glass cookware and later
was identified as a match to Moody. Officer Boynton believed that the items
found in the apartment were consistent with the manufacturing and selling of
crack cocaine.
[6] Moody was charged with four counts from the November 2, 2012, arrest, which
constitute the basis of this appeal: dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony;
possession of a controlled substance as a Class D felony; possession of
marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting law enforcement as a Class
A misdemeanor. On November 12, 2012, Moody was released on bond.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 8 [7] On April 10, 2014, while on patrol, Officer Boynton and Detective Kris
Ockomon encountered an illegally parked vehicle. The driver identified himself
as “Montrez Cloud” and provided a date of birth and Social Security number.
The officers ran the information, and the search revealed it was falsified.
Moments later, several women approached in another vehicle and advised that
the driver of the illegally parked car was Moody. When Officer Ockomon
instructed Moody to exit the vehicle, Moody head-butted him, propelling him
backwards. Moody fled on foot, and after being apprehended once by the
officers, fled again while being handcuffed. A foot chase ensued, and when
Officer Boynton reached Moody, Moody fell and began “kicking and flaying,”
striking Officer Boynton in the knee. Id. at 25. In Moody’s possession was a
substance that resembled, but did not test positive for, crack cocaine.
[8] From the April 10, 2014, incident, Moody was charged with escape as a Class B
felony; dealing in a look-alike substance as a Class C felony; two counts of
battery as Class D batteries; three counts of resisting law enforcement as Class
D felonies; one count of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor;
and false informing as a Class A misdemeanor.
[9] At a consolidated guilty plea hearing, Moody pled guilty to the charges from
the April 10, 2014, incident and also pled guilty to pointing a firearm as a Class
D felony, a charge from an arrest that occurred on August 1, 2012. In the cause
at issue, Moody pled guilty to all four counts, although the dealing in cocaine
count was reduced to a Class B felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 8 [10] At a consolidated sentencing hearing, Moody was sentenced to eighteen years
with fourteen years executed and served for the April 10, 2014, charges and
August, 1, 2012, charge. Moody was sentenced to an aggregate eighteen-year
executed sentence for the four counts from the November 2, 2012, incident.
[11] Regarding the November 2, 2012, convictions, the trial court found as
aggravating factors Moody’s extensive juvenile record, his violation of the
pretrial release conditions, and his felony convictions in the companion cause.
In terms of mitigating factors, the court noted Moody’s admission of guilt and
his relatively young age as a twenty-one-year-old but explained that due to his
extensive criminal record, his youth was afforded “very little mitigating
weight.” Id. at 70. Moody now appeals.
Analysis
[12] Moody argues that the trial court’s imposition of an aggregate eighteen-year
executed sentence is inappropriate. We assess whether Moody’s sentence is
inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and
the nature of the offense. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.
2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to
a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that
decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 12 2015, 10:13 am 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 William Byer, Jr. Gregory F. Zoeller Byer & Byer Attorney General of Indiana Anderson, Indiana Graham T. Youngs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Antwaun D. Moody, March 12, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 48A02-1408-CR-548 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court Cause No. 48C04-1211-FB-2090 State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Case Summary
[1] Antwaun Moody appeals his aggregate eighteen-year executed sentence for
dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony; possession of a controlled substance, a
Class D felony; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting
law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The issue is whether Moody’s eighteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of
his offenses and character.
Facts
[3] On November 2, 2012, Officers Chad Boynton and Chris Frazier of the
Anderson Police Department responded to complaints of high foot traffic
around the apartment of Adrienne Jones. The apartment complex manager
explained that foot traffic was particularly heavy when Moody, who held no
leasehold interest in the property, was at Jones’s apartment, and the manager
speculated that Moody was involved in selling illicit drugs. Before the dispatch,
Officers Boynton and Frazier learned that Moody had an outstanding warrant
for his arrest.
[4] Officers Boynton and Frazier were in the parking lot across from Jones’s
apartment and, upon Moody’s departure from the unit, Officer Frazier called
Moody by name and instructed him to stop. Moody fled, and other officers
were called to secure the perimeter. Moody was caught a few blocks away.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Detective Bill Richardson later relayed that before Moody was caught, he saw
Moody briefly crouch down by a garage. After Moody fled the garage,
Detective Richardson entered and found $935 in cash, which the garage owners
confirmed was not theirs.
[5] After Moody was apprehended, Officer Frazier contacted Jones, who met
Officer Frazier at her apartment and signed a waiver permitting officers to
search her apartment. Officer Boynton and Officer Matthew Jarrett searched
the apartment and found two metal pots containing white liquid residue, glass
cookware bearing white residue, digital scales, a “large amount” (121.1 grams
total) of a yellow, rock-like substance that tested positive for cocaine, as well as
white powder in a plastic bag that did not test positive for cocaine. Tr. p. 58.
Three alprazolam pills and 1.22 grams of marijuana were found on the
kitchen’s countertop. Three firearms—two loaded—were found in the
apartment. The search also yielded a black wallet containing Moody’s
identification. A fingerprint was recovered from the glass cookware and later
was identified as a match to Moody. Officer Boynton believed that the items
found in the apartment were consistent with the manufacturing and selling of
crack cocaine.
[6] Moody was charged with four counts from the November 2, 2012, arrest, which
constitute the basis of this appeal: dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony;
possession of a controlled substance as a Class D felony; possession of
marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting law enforcement as a Class
A misdemeanor. On November 12, 2012, Moody was released on bond.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 8 [7] On April 10, 2014, while on patrol, Officer Boynton and Detective Kris
Ockomon encountered an illegally parked vehicle. The driver identified himself
as “Montrez Cloud” and provided a date of birth and Social Security number.
The officers ran the information, and the search revealed it was falsified.
Moments later, several women approached in another vehicle and advised that
the driver of the illegally parked car was Moody. When Officer Ockomon
instructed Moody to exit the vehicle, Moody head-butted him, propelling him
backwards. Moody fled on foot, and after being apprehended once by the
officers, fled again while being handcuffed. A foot chase ensued, and when
Officer Boynton reached Moody, Moody fell and began “kicking and flaying,”
striking Officer Boynton in the knee. Id. at 25. In Moody’s possession was a
substance that resembled, but did not test positive for, crack cocaine.
[8] From the April 10, 2014, incident, Moody was charged with escape as a Class B
felony; dealing in a look-alike substance as a Class C felony; two counts of
battery as Class D batteries; three counts of resisting law enforcement as Class
D felonies; one count of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor;
and false informing as a Class A misdemeanor.
[9] At a consolidated guilty plea hearing, Moody pled guilty to the charges from
the April 10, 2014, incident and also pled guilty to pointing a firearm as a Class
D felony, a charge from an arrest that occurred on August 1, 2012. In the cause
at issue, Moody pled guilty to all four counts, although the dealing in cocaine
count was reduced to a Class B felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 8 [10] At a consolidated sentencing hearing, Moody was sentenced to eighteen years
with fourteen years executed and served for the April 10, 2014, charges and
August, 1, 2012, charge. Moody was sentenced to an aggregate eighteen-year
executed sentence for the four counts from the November 2, 2012, incident.
[11] Regarding the November 2, 2012, convictions, the trial court found as
aggravating factors Moody’s extensive juvenile record, his violation of the
pretrial release conditions, and his felony convictions in the companion cause.
In terms of mitigating factors, the court noted Moody’s admission of guilt and
his relatively young age as a twenty-one-year-old but explained that due to his
extensive criminal record, his youth was afforded “very little mitigating
weight.” Id. at 70. Moody now appeals.
Analysis
[12] Moody argues that the trial court’s imposition of an aggregate eighteen-year
executed sentence is inappropriate. We assess whether Moody’s sentence is
inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and
the nature of the offense. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.
2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to
a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that
decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of
persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 8 [13] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the
outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged
with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived
‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). We “should 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.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence
under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences
imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a
portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010).
[14] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Moody’s operation was
consistent with manufacturing and selling crack cocaine and that, especially
given Moody’s relative youth, the operation was exceptional. Officer Boynton
testified that in his experience, “[i]t’s very, very rare” for a person of Moody’s
age to deal in such large quantities and value of cocaine. Tr. p. 64. The
presence of loaded firearms in the drug operation is a red flag. Finally, the
State justifiably notes that while the quantity of cocaine was significantly
greater than the minimum required for a Class A felony, which entails a
maximum sentence of fifty years, Moody was convicted of a Class B felony,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 6 of 8 which bears a maximum sentence of twenty years. See McSchooler v. State, 15
N.E.3d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming sentence as appropriate where
defendant’s “actions went far beyond what the State was required to prove to
sustain his conviction”).
[15] Our review of Moody’s character reveals that, despite his relatively young age,
Moody has a considerable criminal record. Moody’s juvenile record contains
numerous adjudications, including resisting law enforcement, conversion, auto
theft, and possession of marijuana and cocaine. In his short adult life, Moody
has amassed several adult convictions, namely those from the immediately
prior cause at the consolidated hearings. Moody argues that the fourteen-year
sentence imposed from those companion convictions will provide sufficient
rehabilitation. However, Moody’s extensive and persistent criminality and the
fact that he committed numerous offenses while on bond and pretrial release
indicate a “disregard for the law” that justifies the trial court’s sentencing. Coy
v. State, 999 N.E.2d 937, 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[16] Moody argues that a ten-year sentence is more appropriate. Pursuant to Rule
7(B), however, Moody must persuade us not that another sentence is more
appropriate but that the sentence imposed is inappropriate. See Webb v. State,
941 N.E.2d 1082, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. In light of the
capacity and potential dangerousness of Moody’s drug operation and his
significant criminal record, he has failed to meet this burden.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Conclusion
[17] Moody’s aggregate eighteen-year executed sentence is not inappropriate. We
affirm.
[18] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 8 of 8