Darren A. Shelton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 18, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-1865
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 18 2019, 10:24 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Ian McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darren A Shelton, December 18, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1865 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff Bob A. Witham Trial Court Cause No. 33C01-1806-F4-12

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Following his guilty plea to dealing in methamphetamine, Darren A. Shelton

was sentenced by the trial court to twenty years imprisonment, the maximum

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 1 of 4 sentence set forth in the Defendant’s plea agreement. Contending that his

sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his

character, Shelton now appeals.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Police initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle in which Shelton was a passenger. At

the time, police believed Shelton had been involved in three prior controlled

buys for methamphetamine. Police arrested Shelton on a warrant for charges

stemming from those buys.

[4] During a search of Shelton incident to his arrest, police discovered 10.8 grams

of methamphetamine in his pocket. A search of Shelton’s home revealed more

methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Shelton with

three counts of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony

dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony possession of

methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6

felony possession of a syringe, and a Class C misdemeanor possession of

paraphernalia.

[5] Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Shelton agreed to plead guilty to

the Level 2 felony in exchange for dismissal of all remaining counts. In

exchange, the State agreed (1) that it would not file an habitual offender

enhancement; (2) that Shelton’s sentence would be capped at 20 years, and (3)

that Shelton was free to argue for placement in the Recovery While Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Incarcerated program. After hearing testimony and arguments, the trial court

ordered Shelton to serve 20 years in prison and declined to recommend

Recovery While Incarcerated.

[6] Shelton now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision [7] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The

advisory sentence for a Level 2 felony is seventeen and one-half years with a

range of ten to thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Shelton's twenty-year

sentence is higher than the advisory sentence for his offense.

[8] In determining the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory sentence,

we look to both character of the offender and the nature of the offense.

Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The significance

of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character varies based on the

gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.

Id.

[9] Shelton’s criminal record includes convictions for burglary, aggravated battery,

and escape. Each of these offenses involves violence or the high risk of violence

and evading the authority of the law.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4 [10] Shelton’s criminal history is extensive and dates back over twenty years. It

includes many substance-related crimes such as possession of marijuana,

possession of paraphernalia, and multiple driving while intoxicated and public

intoxication offenses. These crimes illustrate his character and indicate a

preference for illegal conduct over a sober and law-abiding life. Shelton was

convicted of trafficking in Kentucky and given a five-year sentence in that state.

After his most recent release from the DOC, Shelton committed the offense in

this case and another offense. When he was sentenced here, Shelton was facing

a petition to revoke his probation and a second criminal prosecution. Shelton

has served time in prison, in work release, and probation, and he has violated

the terms of each. Accordingly, we cannot say Shelton’s sentence is

inappropriate based on his character.

[11] Nor can we say that Shelton’s sentence inappropriate to his offense. The

amount of methamphetamine Shelton possessed in committing this offense falls

into the most severe category under the statute. Shelton’s offense was not

minimal, excusable, or deserving of a sentence revision.

[12] Shelton’s sentence is not inappropriate based on either his character or the

nature of his offense.

[13] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1865 | December 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4