Derek Snapp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 18, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-17
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 18 2018, 11:10 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General Brooklyn, Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Derek Snapp, June 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-17 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1704-F3-1284

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Derek A. Snapp appeals his six-year sentence imposed by the trial court

following his guilty plea to level 5 felony battery. He argues that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. He also

argues that the abstract of judgment contains an error, which the State

concedes. Finding that Snapp has not met his burden of demonstrating that his

sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the sentence and remand with instructions

to correct the abstract of judgment.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Snapp and his wife, J.S., were homeless and lived in their car. On April 15,

2017, while in their car, a drunken Snapp hit his wife. He then pulled out a

knife and threatened to slit her throat. She tried to leave the car, but Snapp

stopped her. J.S. filed a report with the Terre Haute Police claiming that Snapp

hit her on a daily basis. On April 21, 2017, Snapp struck J.S. multiple times

and spit in her face, and she again filed a report with the police soon after.

[3] The State originally charged Snapp with level 3 felony criminal confinement,

level 5 felony intimidation, level 6 felony strangulation, class A misdemeanor

domestic battery, and level 5 felony domestic battery (based on a prior

conviction for battering J.S.), as well as with being a habitual offender. The

State later amended the charges by reducing the confinement charge to a level 5

felony and dismissing the intimidation and strangulation charges. During jury

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5 selection, Snapp verbally agreed to plead guilty to the two battery charges and

the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.

[4] This agreement left sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court

found two primary aggravating circumstances during sentencing: (1) Snapp’s

lengthy criminal history and apparent pattern of violence; and (2) Snapp’s

violation of probation by battering his wife. The court found no mitigating

circumstances. The court merged the two convictions and sentenced Snapp to

six years, with five years executed and one year suspended to probation. This

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – Snapp has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate. [5] Snapp invites this Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B). “We may revise a sentence authorized by statute, if, after due

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Gibson v.

State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 215 (Ind. 2016) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), cert.

denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading the Court that his

sentence is inappropriate. Id. The principal role of appellate review is to

“attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial

courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not

to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate

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 facts that

come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. Appellate courts may consider the

appropriateness of the aggregate length of the sentence in addition to

considering whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended, executed,

“or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to

the trial judge.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). The

question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more

appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is

inappropriate. Hunt v. State, 43 N.E.3d 588, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), opinion

on reh’g, trans. denied.

[6] With reference to the nature of the offense, the starting point selected by the

legislature as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed is the advisory

sentence. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). A level 5 felony carries

a sentencing range of one to six years, and an advisory sentence of three years.

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. Snapp argues that there was nothing particularly

egregious about the battery. Although the battery itself was not egregious, the

surrounding circumstances involving the brandishing of a knife significantly

escalated the potential for deadly violence.

[7] With reference to Snapp’s character, he admitted that he battered J.S. and took

responsibility for his actions, albeit not until jury selection for his trial was

underway. Moreover, Snapp has a lengthy criminal history, which reflects

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5 poorly on a person’s character. Snapp was convicted of battery resulting in

bodily injury in 2005, domestic battery in 2006, battery resulting in serious

bodily injury in 2012, and domestic battery with a prior conviction twice in

2016; J.S. was the victim in three of these batteries and a former girlfriend was

the victim of two. Snapp also has several traffic-, drug-, and alcohol-related

convictions. He attributes his criminal history to the stress of life and his use of

alcohol and drugs. His many contacts with the law gave him the opportunity to

reform himself through counseling, treatment, or otherwise, but he has failed to

take advantage of those opportunities. Snapp committed the battery while on

probation and has several prior probation violations, which also reflects poorly

on his character.

[8] In sum, Snapp has not met his burden of persuading this Court that the six-year

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the

sentence.

Section 2 – Remand is necessary to correct the abstract of judgment. [9] Snapp points out that the abstract of judgment lists the original charges and not

the amended charges. The State properly concedes the error. We remand with

instructions to correct this error.

[10] Affirmed and remanded.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5