MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 26 2016, 9:36 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Franklin E. Heathscott, April 26, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1509-CR-1481 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-1502-F5-11
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Franklin E. Heathscott (“Heathscott”) pleaded guilty in Tippecanoe Superior
Court to Level 5 Felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 1 of 6 for life. Heathscott appeals the five-year sentence imposed for his Level 5 felony
conviction arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 1997, Heathscott’s driving privileges were forfeited for life. In 2000 and 2014,
he was convicted of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges
are forfeited for life. For the 2014 conviction, Heathscott was ordered to serve a
seven-year sentence, with five years executed through community corrections
and two years suspended to supervised probation.
[4] On February 5, 2015, while he was on house arrest for the 2014 conviction,1
Heathscott was charged with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle while
privileges are forfeited for life. On August 7, 2015, Heathscott pleaded guilty to
the charge without a plea agreement.
[5] At the sentencing hearing, Heathscott stated that his co-worker was unable to
drive him to work on February 5, 2015, and he drove the vehicle knowing that
his driving privileges were forfeited for life because he was afraid he would lose
his job if he failed to report to work. He requested that the trial court order him
to serve his sentence in community corrections. In support of that request,
1 Heathscott was also on probation for a misdemeanor home improvement fraud conviction in Tippecanoe County and a 2006 Class B felony incest conviction in Fountain County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Heathscott argued that his guilty plea, employment history, the nature of the
offense, and the fact that he provides support for his disabled wife were
mitigating circumstances.
[6] The State argued that Heathscott should be sentenced to five years executed in
the Department of Correction. The State alleged the following aggravating
circumstances: Heathscott’s significant criminal history, consisting of seven
felony and thirteen misdemeanor convictions and numerous petitions to revoke
probation, that Heathscott was on probation in three cases when the offense
was committed, that prior rehabilitative attempts have failed, and finally the
“repetitive nature of the offense.” Tr. p. 56.
[7] The trial court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The trial
court ordered Heathscott to serve a five-year sentence but determined that it
was appropriate to give him “one last chance on community corrections,”
particularly given the nature of the offense. Tr. pp. 62-63. Therefore, the court
ordered three years to be served at the Department of Correction and two years
to be served as a direct placement to community corrections. Heathscott now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Heathscott argues that his five-year sentence is in appropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and the character of the offender. It is well established that
matters of sentencing reside within the discretion of the trial court, and “the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 3 of 6 trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Hines v. State, 30
N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). However, appellate review and revision of a
convicted defendant’s sentence is available “if, after due consideration of the
trial court's sentencing decision, [our court] finds that . . . ‘the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). Heathscott bears the burden
of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. See Rutherford v. State, 866
N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[9] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be 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 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). When we review the appropriateness of a sentence, we may
consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was
suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
[10] Heathscott was convicted of a Level 5 felony. The sentencing range for a Level
5 felony is one to six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind.
Code § 35-30-2-6(b). Heathscott was ordered to serve a five-year sentence, three
years to be served at the Department of Correction and two years to be served
as a direct placement to community corrections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 4 of 6 [11] Heathscott points out that his offense was relatively minor, and indeed, it was a
lower level felony. In addition, he admitted that his decision to drive a vehicle
was not smart, but he did so because he was afraid that he would lose his job if
he was not able to get to work. However, the context is much larger for this
offense.
[12] Heathscott was on house arrest for his 2014 felony conviction for this same
offense on the date he committed the instant offense. Heathscott’s driving
privileges were forfeited for life in 1997. His first felony conviction for operating
a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life occurred in 2000.
Heathscott’s additional driving related offenses are as follows: Class A
misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in 1989, Class D felony operating
while intoxicated in 1990, three counts of Class A misdemeanor driving while
suspended in 1991, two counts Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended
in 1992 in two separate causes, Class A misdemeanor operating while
intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended in 1995,
misdemeanor driving while suspended in 1996, and Class D felony operating a
vehicle as a habitual traffic violator in 1997.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 26 2016, 9:36 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Franklin E. Heathscott, April 26, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1509-CR-1481 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-1502-F5-11
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Franklin E. Heathscott (“Heathscott”) pleaded guilty in Tippecanoe Superior
Court to Level 5 Felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 1 of 6 for life. Heathscott appeals the five-year sentence imposed for his Level 5 felony
conviction arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 1997, Heathscott’s driving privileges were forfeited for life. In 2000 and 2014,
he was convicted of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges
are forfeited for life. For the 2014 conviction, Heathscott was ordered to serve a
seven-year sentence, with five years executed through community corrections
and two years suspended to supervised probation.
[4] On February 5, 2015, while he was on house arrest for the 2014 conviction,1
Heathscott was charged with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle while
privileges are forfeited for life. On August 7, 2015, Heathscott pleaded guilty to
the charge without a plea agreement.
[5] At the sentencing hearing, Heathscott stated that his co-worker was unable to
drive him to work on February 5, 2015, and he drove the vehicle knowing that
his driving privileges were forfeited for life because he was afraid he would lose
his job if he failed to report to work. He requested that the trial court order him
to serve his sentence in community corrections. In support of that request,
1 Heathscott was also on probation for a misdemeanor home improvement fraud conviction in Tippecanoe County and a 2006 Class B felony incest conviction in Fountain County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Heathscott argued that his guilty plea, employment history, the nature of the
offense, and the fact that he provides support for his disabled wife were
mitigating circumstances.
[6] The State argued that Heathscott should be sentenced to five years executed in
the Department of Correction. The State alleged the following aggravating
circumstances: Heathscott’s significant criminal history, consisting of seven
felony and thirteen misdemeanor convictions and numerous petitions to revoke
probation, that Heathscott was on probation in three cases when the offense
was committed, that prior rehabilitative attempts have failed, and finally the
“repetitive nature of the offense.” Tr. p. 56.
[7] The trial court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The trial
court ordered Heathscott to serve a five-year sentence but determined that it
was appropriate to give him “one last chance on community corrections,”
particularly given the nature of the offense. Tr. pp. 62-63. Therefore, the court
ordered three years to be served at the Department of Correction and two years
to be served as a direct placement to community corrections. Heathscott now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Heathscott argues that his five-year sentence is in appropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and the character of the offender. It is well established that
matters of sentencing reside within the discretion of the trial court, and “the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 3 of 6 trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Hines v. State, 30
N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). However, appellate review and revision of a
convicted defendant’s sentence is available “if, after due consideration of the
trial court's sentencing decision, [our court] finds that . . . ‘the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). Heathscott bears the burden
of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. See Rutherford v. State, 866
N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[9] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be 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 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). When we review the appropriateness of a sentence, we may
consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was
suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
[10] Heathscott was convicted of a Level 5 felony. The sentencing range for a Level
5 felony is one to six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind.
Code § 35-30-2-6(b). Heathscott was ordered to serve a five-year sentence, three
years to be served at the Department of Correction and two years to be served
as a direct placement to community corrections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 4 of 6 [11] Heathscott points out that his offense was relatively minor, and indeed, it was a
lower level felony. In addition, he admitted that his decision to drive a vehicle
was not smart, but he did so because he was afraid that he would lose his job if
he was not able to get to work. However, the context is much larger for this
offense.
[12] Heathscott was on house arrest for his 2014 felony conviction for this same
offense on the date he committed the instant offense. Heathscott’s driving
privileges were forfeited for life in 1997. His first felony conviction for operating
a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life occurred in 2000.
Heathscott’s additional driving related offenses are as follows: Class A
misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in 1989, Class D felony operating
while intoxicated in 1990, three counts of Class A misdemeanor driving while
suspended in 1991, two counts Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended
in 1992 in two separate causes, Class A misdemeanor operating while
intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended in 1995,
misdemeanor driving while suspended in 1996, and Class D felony operating a
vehicle as a habitual traffic violator in 1997.
[13] Heathscott’s criminal history is not limited to driving-related offenses. He has
been convicted of Class B felony incest and has three Class D felony theft
convictions. He also has misdemeanor convictions for resisting law
enforcement (two convictions), theft, home improvement fraud, and failure of a
sex offender to possess identification. He has been adjudicated a habitual
substance offender.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 5 of 6 [14] Throughout Heathscott’s criminal history, numerous petitions to revoke
probation have been filed. He was on probation for the B felony incest
conviction and the misdemeanor home improvement fraud conviction when he
committed this offense. In addition, as the trial court noted during sentencing,
Heathscott has been previously been given opportunities to serve his sentences
through community corrections, but he has violated the terms of his community
corrections placements. As we noted above, Heathscott was serving the
sentence imposed for his 2014 Class C felony conviction for operating a motor
vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life through community corrections
when he committed the instant offense.
[15] The trial court thoughtfully considered the reason Heathscott committed this
offense and his decision to plead guilty and weighed those circumstances
against his extensive criminal history when it crafted Heathscott’s sentence. For
all of these reasons, we conclude that Heathscott’s five-year sentence, with three
years to be served at the Department of Correction and two years to be served
as a direct placement to community corrections, is not inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
[16] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-CR-1481 | April 26, 2016 Page 6 of 6