Craig Thacker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 25, 2018
• Docket: 55A01-1711-CR-2714
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 25 2018, 10:14 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Joseph D. Gaunt Curtis T. Hill, Jr. The Gaunt Law Office Attorney General of Indiana Martinsville, Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Craig Thacker, June 25, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 55A01-1711-CR-2714 v. Appeal from the Morgan Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Peter Foley, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 55D01-1606-F6-792

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In May of 2016, Craig Thacker removed his electronic monitoring device and

disappeared for four days. On June 1, 2016, the State charged Thacker with

Level 6 felony escape and Class A misdemeanor theft and alleged him to be a

habitual offender. On August 7, 2017, Thacker pled guilty to Level 6 felony

escape in exchange for the dismissal of the theft charge and habitual offender

allegation. On September 11, 2017, the trial court sentenced Thacker to a two-

and-one-half-year executed sentence. Thacker contends that his sentence was

inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Concluding

that Thacker’s sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 11, 2016, Thacker was placed on home detention for fifty days

following a drug conviction. During that period, Thacker was required to wear

an electronic monitoring device. Approximately two weeks after being placed

on home detention, Thacker was ordered by Morgan County Community

Corrections (“community corrections”) to report for a drug screening. After

receiving that phone call, Thacker cut off the electronic monitoring device and

mailed it to community corrections. Community corrections, however, never

received the device.

[3] Thacker subsequently disappeared for four days. After he was found, he was

taken into custody and charged with Level 6 felony escape and Class A

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 5 misdemeanor theft and alleged to be habitual offender. Thacker pled guilty to

the escape charge on August 7, 2017, in exchange for the dismissal of the theft

charge and habitual offender allegation. During sentencing, the trial court

found no mitigating circumstances, but did find the following aggravating

circumstances: (1) Thacker recently violated the terms of his probation, (2)

Thacker violated the terms of home detention, and (3) Thacker possessed a

significant criminal history. Thacker’s criminal record includes eleven

misdemeanors, twelve felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications.

The trial court sentenced Thacker to two-and-one-half years in prison.

Discussion and Decision [4] The sole issue for our review is whether Thacker’s two-and-one-half-year

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

Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he 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.” When reviewing such claims, we

“concentrate less on comparing the facts of the [case at issue] to others, whether

real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity

of the offense for which the defendant is being sentence, and what it reveals

about the defendant’s character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2008) (internal quotes and citations omitted). Thacker, as the defendant,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 3 of 5 bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v.

State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[5] With respect to the nature of the offense, Thacker cut off his electronic

monitoring device and disappeared for four days. The record shows that

Thacker claimed that he had a “panic attack” that caused him to intentionally

escape from home detention. Tr. Vol. I p. 24. The evidence also shows that

Thacker knew he was required to go to a drug screen around the time that he

escaped from home detention. While this escape is not the most egregious of

crimes, it does show an intentional abuse of his home detention and an inability

to respect the terms of his probation.

[6] As for his character, at age fifty, Thacker has amassed a significant criminal

record. Thacker’s criminal record includes eleven misdemeanors, twelve

felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications. The record shows that

Thacker has received the benefit of probation, treatment, and short jail

sentences in those previous cases, but continues to reoffend. In total, Thacker

has been on probation nine times, violating the terms of his probation seven

times. As for treatment, the record shows that Thacker has been enrolled in

eight different programs for his drug use and has failed to complete

approximately half of those programs. Despite Thacker’s frequent contacts

with the criminal justice system, he has not chosen to reform himself. Based on

the above-mentioned evidence of Thacker’s character and the nature of his

offense, Thacker has failed to establish that his two-and-one-half-year sentence

was inappropriate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 5 of 5