Emily R. Loredo v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 29, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-1119
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing FILED the defense of res judicata, collateral Sep 29 2020, 9:07 am

estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Lisa M. Johnson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Brownsburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Benjamin J. Shoptaw Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Emily R. Loredo, September 29, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1119 v. Appeal from the Adams Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Patrick R. Miller, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 01D01-1810-F6-187

Bradford, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1119 | September 29, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Emily Loredo was charged with Level 6 felony failure to appear after she failed

to appear for a sentencing hearing and absconded from Indiana. She eventually

turned herself in, was extradited to Indiana, and pled guilty to the Level 6

felony charge. The trial court accepted Loredo’s guilty plea and sentenced her

to 850 days of incarceration. On appeal, Loredo contends that her 850-day

sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In June of 2017, Loredo committed two acts of dealing a substance that she

represented to be a controlled substance. On September 10, 2018, she pled

guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony dealing a substance represented to be a

controlled substance. Loredo was ordered to appear for a sentencing hearing

on October 1, 2018. Prior to the scheduled sentencing hearing, Loredo

absconded from Indiana.

[3] After Loredo failed to appear for the October 1, 2018 sentencing hearing, the

State charged Loredo with Level 6 felony failure to appear. On January 31,

2020, Loredo turned herself in in Virginia and was subsequently extradited to

Indiana. On May 13, 2020, Loredo pled guilty to the Level 6 felony failure-to-

appear charge. The trial court subsequently accepted Loredo’s guilty plea and

sentenced her to 850 days of incarceration.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1119 | September 29, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Discussion and Decision [4] Loredo contends that her 850-day sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B) provides that “The 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.” In analyzing 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 sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s

character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal

quotation omitted). The defendant 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] The trial court sentence Loredo to a term of 850 days for her Level 6 felony

failure-to-appear conviction. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-7(b) provides that

“[a] person who commits a Level 6 felony … shall be imprisoned for a fixed

term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (2½) years, with the

advisory sentence being one (1) year.” Thus, in sentencing Loredo to an 850-

day term, or two years and four months, the trial court imposed an aggravated

sentence.

[6] With regard to the nature of the offense, Loredo was charged with Level 6

felony failure to appear after she failed to appear at sentencing in another

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1119 | September 29, 2020 Page 3 of 5 criminal case and absconded from Indiana. Loredo stayed out of Indiana for

509 days before turning herself in. Loredo was also on probation in two

unrelated criminal cases at the time she fled and her act of fleeing constituted a

violation of the terms of her probation.

[7] As for Loredo’s character, “[w]hen considering the character of the offender,

one relevant fact is the defendant’s criminal history.” Johnson v. State, 986

N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Loredo acknowledges that she has

amassed a number of prior convictions but argues that her prior criminal

behavior can largely be attributed to her prior drug use. Loredo’s criminal

history includes a juvenile adjudication for leaving home without the

permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian; three misdemeanor convictions;

and four felony convictions.1 She has also violated the terms of probation on

multiple occasions and there were outstanding warrants for her arrest at the

time of sentencing. In addition, the trial court found that Loredo was a “a high

risk to reoffend.” Tr. Vol. II p. 33. Loredo’s apparent disregard for the laws of

this state as evidenced by her criminal behavior reflects poorly on her character.

See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (providing that

even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection on a defendant’s character).

1 Loredo’s prior convictions included the following: Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, two convictions for Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1119 | September 29, 2020 Page 4 of 5 [8] In arguing that her sentence is inappropriate, Loredo points to what she asserts

are positive character traits. First, Loredo claims that although her two

children “do no live with [her], she is a loving mother who is genuinely

concerned about their well-being and wants the best for them.” Appellant’s Br.

p. 12. While Loredo may genuinely care about her children, her concern for

her children did not stop her from abandoning them by absconding from the

state for over 500 days. Loredo also claims to have been subjected to abuse as a

child and, as a result, suffers from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress

disorder (“PTSD”). Loredo, however, presented no evidence to support her

claim that she suffers from anxiety, depression, or PTSD or to prove any nexus

between her alleged mental illness and the commission of her crime.

[9] Loredo further claims that it reflects well on her character that she eventually

accepted responsibility for her actions, cooperated with authorities, and turned

herself in. We cannot agree. Loredo absconded after pleading guilty in another

criminal case. She remained outside of the state for over 500 days. The fact

that she eventually decided to cooperate with authorities does not negate the

negative depiction of her character reflected by her absconsion. Loredo has

failed to convince us that her aggregate 850-day sentence is inappropriate. See

Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176 (“The defendant bears the burden of persuading us

that his sentence is inappropriate.”).

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1119 | September 29, 2020 Page 5 of 5