Jason D. Crowder v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 18, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2106
• 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 Jun 18 2019, 9:01 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark A. Kiesler Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Kiesler Law Office Attorney General New Albany, Indiana Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason D. Crowder, June 18, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2106 v. Appeal from the Orange Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff Steven L. Owen, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 59C01-1802-F4-131

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Jason D. Crowder pled guilty to burglary and theft, and the trial court

sentenced him to a total term of twelve years. He now appeals, arguing that his

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

We disagree and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On February 5, 2018, officers from the Paoli Police Department were

dispatched to Todd Copeland’s home on a report of a burglary. After arriving,

Copeland walked the officers through his home and pointed out items that had

been disturbed and stolen, including Copeland’s motorcycle and deceased son’s

wallet. Copeland told the officers that all the rooms in the home had been

ransacked. Crowder was later arrested, and a gift card signed by Copeland was

found on him.

[3] The State charged Crowder with Level 4 felony burglary, Level 6 felony theft,

and Level 6 felony auto theft. The State also alleged that Crowder was a

habitual offender. Thereafter, the State and Crowder entered into a plea

agreement under which Crowder would plead guilty to burglary and theft, and

the State would dismiss the auto-theft charge and the habitual-offender

allegation. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 85. Sentencing was left to the discretion

of the trial court with the requirement that the sentences run concurrently. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 5 [4] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified the following aggravators:

(1) Crowder had an extensive criminal history, including four prior felonies and

numerous misdemeanors and (2) Crowder had violated his probation twice. As

a mitigating factor, the court found that Crowder pled guilty and took

responsibility for his actions; however, the court noted that Crowder benefited

from the plea agreement. Finding that the aggravators “greatly outweigh” the

mitigators, the trial court sentenced Crowder to concurrent terms of twelve

years for burglary and two-and-a-half years for theft. Tr. p. 16.

[5] Crowder now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision [6] Crowder contends that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to

revise it pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an

appellate 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.” “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the

culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to

others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”

Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v.

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the

judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants have the burden of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 5 persuading us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d

1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[7] Although Crowder pled guilty to two crimes, his plea agreement required

concurrent sentences, so the sentencing range he faced was that of his more

serious offense, Level 4 felony burglary. The sentencing range for a Level 4

felony is two to twelve years with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code

§ 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of twelve years.

Crowder asks us to reduce his sentence to the advisory term of six years. We

decline to do so.

[8] With respect to the nature of the offense, Crowder argues that his burglary was

“no more egregious than the typical [b]urglary.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. The

State asserts the burglary “was far from typical,” as Crowder ransacked the

undisturbed room of Copland’s deceased son. Appellee’s Br. p 10. While there

is no evidence that Crowder knew that he was ransacking the room of

Copeland’s deceased son, he does not dispute that he ransacked the house,

conduct that goes beyond the basic elements of burglary.

[9] In any event, Crowder’s criminal history by itself supports a twelve-year

sentence in this case. Crowder has been convicted of four felonies and ten

misdemeanors and has two probation violations. Appellant’s App. Vol. II. pp.

93-96. Although Crowder notes that none of his convictions are for violent

offenses, these convictions are his fifth and sixth felony convictions. Further, as

a result of Crowder pleading guilty, the State did not pursue a habitual-offender

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 4 of 5 enhancement, which could have resulted in as many as twenty additional years

in prison. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i). Given Crowder’s criminal history

paired with the favorable plea agreement he received, we cannot say that his

sentence of twelve years is inappropriate.

[10] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2106 | June 18, 2019 Page 5 of 5