Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2017
• Docket: 49A04-1702-CR-245
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 31 2017, 7:27 am

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ruth Ann Johnson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Darren Bedwell Attorney General of Indiana Marion County Public Defender Appellate Division Matthew B. Mackenzie Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Edward Chandler, July 31, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1702-CR-245 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1602-F3-8004

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [1] Edward Chandler appeals his six-year sentence for Level 5 felony robbery. 1 We

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 14, 2016, Chandler entered a Dollar General store and told the

cashier, “[O]pen the drawer. Give me the money.” (Tr. Vol. II at 35.) The

cashier testified she saw Chandler display the butt of a handgun tucked into his

clothing. The cashier told him she could not open the cash register until he

bought something, so Chandler threw a bag of candy on the counter and told

the cashier, “hurry up, hurry up.” (Id. at 36.) Chandler grabbed the money,

approximately $95.00, from the cashier and exited the store. The exchange was

caught on store surveillance video, which the cashier and manager gave to law

enforcement.

[3] Based on an anonymous tip, police obtained a search warrant and searched

Chandler’s apartment, where they found a handgun and distinctively-patterned

shoes like those in the video. The day after the search, Chandler turned himself

in and confessed to the crime. On March 1, 2016, the State charged Chandler

with Level 3 felony robbery 2 and Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1) (2014). 2 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 5 serious violent felon. 3 On April 7, 2016, the State filed an habitual offender

enhancement. 4

[4] The court bifurcated the charges for trial. On November 17, 2016, the jury

hearing evidence on the robbery charge returned a guilty verdict for the lesser-

included offense of Level 5 felony robbery. The State then dismissed the

firearm charge and the habitual offender enhancement. On January 9, 2017,

the trial court sentenced Chandler to six years incarcerated.

Discussion and Decision [5] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). We consider not only

the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other

factors appearing in the record. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013). The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[6] 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 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The

3 Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2014). 4 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 5 advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory

sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014). The trial court

sentenced Chandler to six years incarcerated. One factor we consider when

determining the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory sentence is

whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed

by the defendant that makes it different from the “typical” offense accounted for

by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d

44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We agree with Chandler that the facts

of this crime are not particularly noteworthy. Chandler forcefully asked the

Dollar General cashier for the money in the cash register and took it from her.

Chandler received approximately $95.00 from the robbery.

[7] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the

defendant’s criminal history. 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. Chandler’s criminal history goes back

almost twenty years and includes nine felonies, multiple misdemeanors, and

three habitual offender adjudications. Four of those felony convictions were for

robbery. As reasons he should not have been sentenced above the advisory,

Chandler points to the facts he turned himself in, he had engaged in

rehabilitative services in the past, and he was remorseful at sentencing.

However, his criminal history alone renders his sentence not inappropriate, as it

demonstrates his continued disregard for the law and his inability to benefit

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 4 of 5 from rehabilitative services. See Speer v. State, 995 N.E.2d 1, 14 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013) (sentences higher than the advisory not inappropriate based on Speer’s

extensive criminal history for similar offenses), trans. denied.

Conclusion [8] Chandler’s six-year sentence for Level 5 felony robbery was not inappropriate

based on the nature of the offense and his character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1702-CR-245 | July 31, 2017 Page 5 of 5