MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 15 2015, 10:05 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 Chris Palmer Frazier Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Karl M. Scharnberg Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Camryn S. Matthews, June 15, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 70A05-1501-CR-25 v. Appeal from the Rush Superior Court. The Honorable Brian D. Hill, Judge. State of Indiana, Cause No. 70D01-1404-FA-147 Appellee-Plaintiff.
Barteau, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case [1] Camryn Matthews appeals his sentence of eight years for his conviction of
possession of a controlled substance as a Class C felony. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7
(2011). We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Issue [2] Matthews presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether
Matthews’ sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On September 30, 2013, Matthews sold $30 of methamphetamine to a
confidential informant who was working with a narcotics investigator for the
Rushville Police Department. The sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public
park. On October 15, 2013, Matthews sold 4 pills of hydrocodone, a controlled
substance, for $30 to a confidential informant within 1,000 feet of a family
housing complex.
[4] Based upon these incidents, Matthews was charged with dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Class A felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-1.1
(2006); possession of methamphetamine, as a Class B felony, Indiana Code
section 35-48-4-6.1 (2006); dealing in a controlled substance, as a Class A
felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-2 (2011); and possession of a controlled
substance, as a Class C felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-7. Matthews was
arrested on these charges, and he later posted bond and was accepted into the
community corrections program. However, Matthews had a positive drug
screen in community corrections. Due to this violation, Matthews’ bond was
revoked, and he was charged with additional offenses.
[5] Matthews pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance within 1,000
feet of a family housing complex, as a Class C felony. In exchange for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Matthews’ plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges in the instant cause
as well as the new charges relating to his positive drug screen in community
corrections. The trial court sentenced Matthews to eight years executed. It is
from this sentence that Matthews now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [6] Matthews’ sole contention on appeal is that his eight-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. We may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine that the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). However, “we must and should exercise
deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires
us to give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and
recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.”
Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A defendant bears
the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the
inappropriateness standard of review. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).
[7] We begin by recognizing that the advisory sentence for a Class C felony at the
time of the commission of Matthews’ offense was four years, with two years
being the minimum sentence and eight years being the maximum sentence. See
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2005).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 6 [8] Next we turn to the nature of the offense. Here, although Matthews was
convicted only of possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a
family housing complex as a Class C felony, the full facts of the case support
charges of dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a family
housing complex as a Class A felony, and dealing and possessing
methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park as Class A and B felonies,
respectively. In both instances, Matthews sold drugs near family-oriented areas
for which our legislature has provided more protection from certain crimes like
drug dealing.
[9] With regard to the character of the offender, we observe that Matthews has a
criminal history dating back to 2003 when he was convicted of possession of
methamphetamine as a Class D felony. He continued committing offenses,
including felony counterfeiting in 2009, misdemeanor visiting a common
nuisance in 2011, and felony theft in 2012. Thus, Matthews’ criminal history
consists of four convictions, three of which are felonies.
[10] Matthews admits he has a drug addiction and that this addiction is the
underlying cause for his criminal activity. He seeks a shorter sentence so that
he can obtain treatment for his addiction. However, he has shown little interest
or effort in addressing his addiction. For example, he received treatment for
twelve weeks in 2003 but, as evidenced by his criminal history and his
admission to his ongoing addiction, he failed to take advantage of that
opportunity to turn his life around. Even more telling, when the trial court gave
him the opportunity to address his addiction and enter the community
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 4 of 6 corrections program in this very case, he again squandered the opportunity. He
tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, morphine, and
benzodiazepines, causing his bond to be revoked, his removal from the
program, and the filing of new charges. If Matthews truly wants to control his
addiction, the Department of Correction offers substance abuse programs.
[11] Finally, Matthews likens his case to that of the defendant in Norris v. State, 27
N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) and argues that he, too, should receive a
reduced sentence. Norris sold a small number of hydrocodone pills to a
confidential informant during a controlled buy. Norris pleaded guilty to a Class
B felony and was sentenced to twenty years executed. On appeal, a panel of
this Court determined that although Norris has a criminal history and was on
probation when he committed the offense, given the small amount of pills that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 15 2015, 10:05 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 Chris Palmer Frazier Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Karl M. Scharnberg Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Camryn S. Matthews, June 15, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 70A05-1501-CR-25 v. Appeal from the Rush Superior Court. The Honorable Brian D. Hill, Judge. State of Indiana, Cause No. 70D01-1404-FA-147 Appellee-Plaintiff.
Barteau, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case [1] Camryn Matthews appeals his sentence of eight years for his conviction of
possession of a controlled substance as a Class C felony. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7
(2011). We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Issue [2] Matthews presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether
Matthews’ sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On September 30, 2013, Matthews sold $30 of methamphetamine to a
confidential informant who was working with a narcotics investigator for the
Rushville Police Department. The sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public
park. On October 15, 2013, Matthews sold 4 pills of hydrocodone, a controlled
substance, for $30 to a confidential informant within 1,000 feet of a family
housing complex.
[4] Based upon these incidents, Matthews was charged with dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Class A felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-1.1
(2006); possession of methamphetamine, as a Class B felony, Indiana Code
section 35-48-4-6.1 (2006); dealing in a controlled substance, as a Class A
felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-2 (2011); and possession of a controlled
substance, as a Class C felony, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-7. Matthews was
arrested on these charges, and he later posted bond and was accepted into the
community corrections program. However, Matthews had a positive drug
screen in community corrections. Due to this violation, Matthews’ bond was
revoked, and he was charged with additional offenses.
[5] Matthews pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance within 1,000
feet of a family housing complex, as a Class C felony. In exchange for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Matthews’ plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges in the instant cause
as well as the new charges relating to his positive drug screen in community
corrections. The trial court sentenced Matthews to eight years executed. It is
from this sentence that Matthews now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [6] Matthews’ sole contention on appeal is that his eight-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. We may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine that the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). However, “we must and should exercise
deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires
us to give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and
recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.”
Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A defendant bears
the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the
inappropriateness standard of review. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).
[7] We begin by recognizing that the advisory sentence for a Class C felony at the
time of the commission of Matthews’ offense was four years, with two years
being the minimum sentence and eight years being the maximum sentence. See
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2005).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 6 [8] Next we turn to the nature of the offense. Here, although Matthews was
convicted only of possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a
family housing complex as a Class C felony, the full facts of the case support
charges of dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a family
housing complex as a Class A felony, and dealing and possessing
methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park as Class A and B felonies,
respectively. In both instances, Matthews sold drugs near family-oriented areas
for which our legislature has provided more protection from certain crimes like
drug dealing.
[9] With regard to the character of the offender, we observe that Matthews has a
criminal history dating back to 2003 when he was convicted of possession of
methamphetamine as a Class D felony. He continued committing offenses,
including felony counterfeiting in 2009, misdemeanor visiting a common
nuisance in 2011, and felony theft in 2012. Thus, Matthews’ criminal history
consists of four convictions, three of which are felonies.
[10] Matthews admits he has a drug addiction and that this addiction is the
underlying cause for his criminal activity. He seeks a shorter sentence so that
he can obtain treatment for his addiction. However, he has shown little interest
or effort in addressing his addiction. For example, he received treatment for
twelve weeks in 2003 but, as evidenced by his criminal history and his
admission to his ongoing addiction, he failed to take advantage of that
opportunity to turn his life around. Even more telling, when the trial court gave
him the opportunity to address his addiction and enter the community
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 4 of 6 corrections program in this very case, he again squandered the opportunity. He
tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, morphine, and
benzodiazepines, causing his bond to be revoked, his removal from the
program, and the filing of new charges. If Matthews truly wants to control his
addiction, the Department of Correction offers substance abuse programs.
[11] Finally, Matthews likens his case to that of the defendant in Norris v. State, 27
N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) and argues that he, too, should receive a
reduced sentence. Norris sold a small number of hydrocodone pills to a
confidential informant during a controlled buy. Norris pleaded guilty to a Class
B felony and was sentenced to twenty years executed. On appeal, a panel of
this Court determined that although Norris has a criminal history and was on
probation when he committed the offense, given the small amount of pills that
were sold to a confidential informant during a controlled buy, a sentence of
twelve years with eight executed and four years of supervised probation was
appropriate.
[12] Norris involved only one buy, and the probation department recommended a
twelve-year sentence with six years suspended to probation, which Norris’
counsel indicated was fair. Although Matthews’ case is like the Norris case in
that it involves a small amount of drugs, that is where the similarity ends.
Matthews sold drugs on two occasions, both near family-oriented areas. The
probation department gave no recommendation and deferred to the trial court.
In addition, there was overwhelming evidence of Matthews’ ongoing and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 5 of 6 escalating drug addiction and failure to benefit from addiction programs offered
to him.
[13] In the instant case, it is clear that prior brushes with the law as well as attempts
at substance abuse programs have proven ineffective to rehabilitate Matthews,
and this offense is further evidence that a longer period of incarceration is
appropriate. Matthews has not carried his burden of persuading this Court that
his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. See Anglemyer,
868 N.E.2d at 494.
Conclusion [14] For the reasons stated, we conclude that Matthews’ sentence is not
inappropriate given the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
[15] Affirmed.
[16] Robb, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A05-1501-CR-25 | June 15, 2015 Page 6 of 6