Corey Harvey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 26, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-686
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Aug 26 2019, 8:31 am precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Corey Harvey, August 26, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-686 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G03-1709-MR-34872

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In September of 2017, Corey Harvey got into an argument with Daquan

Proctor and others about the noise they were making outside of Harvey’s

apartment. Approximately thirty minutes later, Harvey approached Proctor

and shot him in the head, killing him. Following Harvey’s conviction for the

murder of Proctor, the trial court sentenced him to fifty-five years of

incarceration, with five years suspended and two of those suspended to

probation. Harvey contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because

we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 10, 2017, Joey Thompson lived with Danahea McFadden at the

Woodhaven Apartments in Indianapolis. At approximately 6:30 p.m.,

Thompson, Proctor, Jonte Williams, and a man known as A.Z. were in one of

the hallways of the apartment complex shooting dice. The group became loud,

and when Harvey opened his apartment door to tell the players to quiet down,

the intoxicated Proctor “g[o]t to talking back to him[,]” “cussing[,]” and

challenging him to come outside. Tr. Vol. II p. 244, 245. Harvey responded,

“hold that thought,” and shut the door. Tr. Vol. II p. 244.

[3] Approximately thirty minutes later, two of Harvey’s cousins arrived at a

parking lot in the apartment complex, one of whom was carrying a handgun.

Thompson apparently felt concerned enough by the cousins’ arrival that he

returned to his apartment and attempted to locate his handgun. Shortly

thereafter, Proctor, Williams, A.Z., McFadden’s cousin Chrishunna Blackman,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5 and Woodhaven resident Sequoia Radford were standing outside and talking

near Radford’s car when Radford saw somebody peeking around a corner.

Blackman advised Proctor that he needed to leave, and Blackman began

walking away in the direction of McFadden’s apartment when she was passed

by Harvey walking the other way. As Harvey passed Blackman, he began

shooting at Proctor. Harvey shot Proctor in the head, killing him, and also shot

him in the right hand, right shoulder, and left foot.

[4] On September 14, 2017, the State charged Harvey with, inter alia, the murder of

Proctor. On November 9, 2018, a jury found Harvey guilty of the murder of

Proctor. On February 22, 2019, the trial court sentenced Harvey to fifty-five

years of incarceration, with five years suspended and two of those suspended to

probation.

Discussion and Decision [5] 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.” Ind. Appellate

Rule 7(B). “Although appellate review of sentences must give due

consideration to the trial court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the

trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an

authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied.”

Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [6] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the question is not

whether another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the inquiry is

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136,

142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at

the end of the day turns on our sense of 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). In addition to the “due consideration” we are required to give to the

trial court’s sentencing decision, “we understand and recognize the unique

perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State,

866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The sentencing range for murder is

forty-five to sixty-five years of incarceration, and the trial court ordered that

Harvey serve a fifty-five-year advisory sentence with five years suspended, two

of those suspended to probation. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3(a).

[7] The nature of Harvey’s offense supports the trial court’s sentencing decision.

The senselessness of Harvey’s crime stands out in particular, which crime was

apparently motivated by anger over an argument about too much noise in the

hallway outside Harvey’s door. It also is worth noting that when Harvey shot

Proctor in the head, over thirty minutes had passed since their argument.

Harvey had more than enough time to calm down and reconsider his course of

action, but did not. Finally, when Harvey opened fire, others were in the

vicinity and could have also been injured or killed. For example, it is fortunate

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5 that Radford’s car was unoccupied, as it was hit by several rounds. The

senseless and egregious nature of Harvey’s crime justifies his sentence.

[8] Harvey’s character also supports the sentence he received. While Harvey’s

criminal history is not excessive, even a minor criminal history is evidence of

poor character. See Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874 (observing that even a minor

criminal record is a sign of a poor character). As a juvenile, Harvey was

charged in 2008 with committing resisting law enforcement, criminal trespass,

and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. As an adult, Harvey charged with

possession of marijuana in 2016, a charge that was dismissed, and with dealing

in marijuana and possession of marijuana in 2017, charges that were pending

when he was sentenced in this case. Harvey’s contacts with the juvenile and

criminal justice systems have not caused him to reform himself. Quite the

opposite, in fact, as Harvey has progressed from allegations of low-level drug

offenses straight to murder, which—to say the least—does not speak well of

Harvey’s character. Harvey has failed to establish that his advisory sentence for

murder is inappropriate.

[9] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-686 | August 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5