Chad Eric Pindell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
This text of Chad Eric Pindell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Chad Eric Pindell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 23 2019, 7:02 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 R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana Emily D. Kopp Certified Legal Intern Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Chad Eric Pindell, August 23, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-546 v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jon N. Cleary, Appellee-Plaintiff. Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-1803-F5-17
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-546 | August 23, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Statement of the Case [1] Chad Pindell (“Pindell”) appeals the three-year sentence imposed after he pled
guilty to Level 5 felony child seduction.1 Pindell argues that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his offense. Concluding
that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing
order.
[2] We affirm.
Issue Whether Pindell’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.
Facts [3] In March 2018, the State charged thirty-five-year-old Pindell, an assistant high
school basketball coach, with Level 5 felony child seduction for engaging in oral
sex in the coach’s office with seventeen-year-old M.C. (“M.C.”), a high school
basketball player. The State also charged Pindell with Level 6 felony providing
obscene matter and performances for sending a photograph of his penis and his
ejaculate to M.C.
[4] In January 2019, the State and Pindell reached a plea agreement wherein
Pindell agreed to plead guilty to the Level 5 felony for a fixed sentence of thirty-
1 IND. CODE § 35-42-4-7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-546 | August 23, 2019 Page 2 of 6 six months, with twenty-seven months suspended to probation. After hearing
the specifics of the plea agreement, the trial court responded as follows:
In all honesty, the, just, to be as candid as I can, uh, with, with counsel, the position of trust, uh, not only was he a teacher, he was a coach, he is presenting himself as a man of God and this occurs and so, to accept a Plea Agreement, thirty-six (36) months with twenty-seven (27) months suspended, the Court’s not inclined to do unless the parties can present some evidence as to why this, uh compromise has been reached.
(Tr. Vol. 2 at 5).
[5] Following the presentation of this evidence, the trial court explained as follows
when it rejected the agreement:
What message do you send to your community that a coach can engage in oral sex – and not only is it the oral sex, the Probable Cause Affidavit shows the grooming that occurred before this . . . the sending pictures of his penis after he ejaculated[.] Like, this was not a moment of weakness or a one thing quickly happened, this was an episode that occurred for a longer period of time. And so, the primary concern of this Court is what message are you sending to this community that if you have some form of sex with a player in a coach’s office, you do a couple months in the county jail and go on probation? And so, for those reasons, the Court does reject the Plea Agreement.
(Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). Pindell subsequently agreed to plead guilty to the Level 5
felony and to leave sentencing to the trial court’s discretion.
[6] Testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed that during the winter of 2017,
M.C. was a high-school senior that played on her school’s basketball team.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-546 | August 23, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Pindell, who had been married for fifteen years and who had three children,
had served as an assistant basketball coach at the high school for ten years. He
had also served as a teacher in the school system until July 2017 when he had
become a pastor at his church. In addition, Pindell was a county councilman.
[7] In December 2017, Pindell began contacting M.C. via text and Snapchat, a
social media application that allows for the exchange of texts, photographs, and
video messages. During a twenty-eight-day period in January and February
2018, Pindell and M.C. exchanged 4,858 Snapchat photographs and messages.
[8] In late January or early February 2018, Pindell asked M.C. to meet him in the
coach’s office in the locker room after basketball practice. When M.C. entered
the office, Pindell exposed his erect penis to her. M.C. knelt down and
performed oral sex on Pindell while he held her head and face with his hands.
[9] A few days after the sexual encounter, Pindell sent M.C. a photograph of his
penis and another photograph of him holding his penis with his hand. The
second photograph also revealed ejaculate on the bathroom counter.
[10] The testimony further revealed that M.C. had been a good student and athlete
in high school. After Pindell was charged with the two offenses, the small
community had ostracized M.C. and blamed her for Pindell’s plight.
[11] After hearing this evidence, and pointing out that Pindell had violated his
position of trust “in the home of that trust,” the trial court sentenced Pindell to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-546 | August 23, 2019 Page 4 of 6 an executed three (3) year advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony. (Tr. Vol. 2 at
128). Pindell now appeals.
Decision [12] Pindell’s sole argument is that his three-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that
his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).
[13] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is
the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. The sentencing range for a
Level 5 felony is one to six years. IND. CODE § 35-50-2-6. The advisory
sentence is three years. Id. Here, the trial court sentenced Pindell to three
years, which is the advisory sentence.
[14] Regarding the nature of the offense, Pindell, a thirty-five-year-old high school
basketball coach, began a relationship with M.C., a seventeen-year-old high
school basketball player on his team, by contacting her via text and Snapchat.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-546 | August 23, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Pindell and M.C. exchanged almost 5,000 messages and pictures during a
twenty-eight-day period. Thereafter, Pindell invited M.C. to his office after
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chad Eric Pindell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chad-eric-pindell-v-state-of-indiana-mem-dec-indctapp-2019.