Christopher D. Manley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 13, 2016
• Docket: 03A01-1510-CR-1833
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 13 2016, 9:06 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Alan L. Whitted Gregory F. Zoeller Alex R. Whitted Attorney General of Indiana Whitted Law, LLC. Jesse R. Drum Columbus, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher D. Manley, April 13, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 03A01-1510-CR-1833 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kathleen T. Appellee-Plaintiff Coriden, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03D02-1410-CM-4602

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5 [1] Christopher D. Manley appeals his one-year sentence for class A misdemeanor

criminal conversion, arguing that it is inappropriate. We conclude that he has

waived his arguments, and therefore affirm.

[2] Manley temporarily lived with Kathryn Blackburn in Hope. After he moved

out, Blackburn could not find her checkbook. A couple of weeks later, she

received a notice that someone had attempted to cash one of her checks at a

MainSource Bank in Indianapolis. The check was made out to Manley for $75.

Blackburn said that she did not sign the check, did not recognize the

handwriting on the check, and did not authorize a check to be written to

Manley.

[3] In October 2014, the State charged Manley with class A misdemeanor check

fraud and class A misdemeanor criminal conversion. At a bench trial, the court

found Manley not guilty of check fraud but guilty of criminal conversion. In

October 2015, the trial court sentenced Manley to one year in the Bartholomew

County Jail to be served upon completion of the sentence he was currently

serving.

[4] Manley asserts that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B), which states, “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute

if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the

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

of the offender.” Manley has the burden to show that his sentence is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5 inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on

reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.

[5] First, Manley contends that the trial court failed to issue a sentencing statement

explaining why his sentence was to be served consecutive to his current term of

incarceration. This is not an Appellate Rule 7(B) claim. Manley’s argument

should have been presented in the context of our abuse of discretion review of a

sentence. See id. at 490-91 (stating that trial court may abuse its discretion by

not entering sentencing statement); King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2008) (“[A]n inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an

argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the

defendant.”). Because Manley has failed to cogently argue that the trial court

abused its discretion, his argument is waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule

46(A)(8)(a) (“The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on

the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.”); Keller v. State, 987

N.E.2d 1099, 1121 n.11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Keller’s “failure to make a cogent

argument regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing

him results in waiver of that issue.”), trans. denied. Moreover, trial courts are

not required to enter sentencing statements for misdemeanor sentences.

Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490 (“Indiana trial courts are required to enter

sentencing statements whenever imposing sentence for a felony offense.”);

Morris v. State, 985 N.E.2d 364, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“[I]t is clear that

abuse of discretion review of a sentence, which concerns a trial court’s duty to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5 issue a sentencing statement along with its findings of aggravators and

mitigators, has no place in reviewing a misdemeanor sentence.”), trans. denied.

[6] Second, Manley argues that the nature of his offense does not warrant a

maximum, consecutive sentence. 1 Manley completely fails to consider how his

character impacts the inappropriateness of his sentence. Manley “bears the

burden of showing [that] both prongs of the inquiry favor revision of [his]

sentence.” Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

denied. Because Manley does not address his character, his argument is waived.

Id.

[7] Waiver notwithstanding, Manley’s argument is unavailing. As for the nature of

the offense, Manley stole a checkbook from a woman he had been living with

and attempted to use one of the checks to unlawfully obtain $75 from her. As

for his character, Manley has not been a law-abiding citizen. He has

convictions for class B felony criminal deviate conduct, carrying a handgun

without a license, failing to register as a sex offender (two), and driving while

suspended (two). Given the nature of the offense and his character, Manley

fails to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.

1 A person who commits a class A misdemeanor may be imprisoned to a fixed term of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5 [8] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5