Jason E. Walls v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 11, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-264
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 11 2018, 6:22 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason E. Walls, June 11, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-264 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-1709-F6-431

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Jason E. Walls (“Walls”) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine1 as

a Level 6 felony and was sentenced to two and a half years with six months

suspended to probation. Walls appeals his sentence and raises the following

issue for our review: whether his 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] While investigating the theft of several credit cards from a home, police learned

that one of the credit cards had been used to rent a hotel room. Police officers

went to the hotel and knocked on the door of the rented room. There, they

encountered Walls and his wife. The officers observed syringes in plain view

and arrested Walls. While conducting a search of Walls’s person, the officers

found a small baggie of methamphetamine in his wallet and a syringe

containing liquid methamphetamine.

[4] On September 12, 2017, the State charged Walls with Level 6 felony possession

of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Level 6

felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor theft. On

November 28, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Walls pleaded

guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in exchange for the

1 See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 2 of 5 dismissal of the remaining charges in this case and in one other case.

Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. On January 4, 2018, the

trial court sentenced Walls to two and a half years with six months suspended

to probation. Walls now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this 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.” Our Supreme Court has explained that the

principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, not

to achieve a perceived correct result in each case. Brown v. State, 52 N.E.3d 945,

954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.

2008)), trans. denied. We independently examine the nature of a defendant’s

offenses and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B) with substantial deference

to the trial court’s sentence. Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 355 (Ind. 2015).

“In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether the defendant’s

sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more appropriate;

rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. State, 994

N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The defendant bears the

burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Brown, 52 N.E.3d at

954.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [6] Walls argues that his two and a half-year sentence is inappropriate in light of

the nature of the offense and his character. Specifically, he contends that the

nature of his offense is minor because he was only in possession of a small

quantity of methamphetamine that was presumably for personal use. Walls

also asserts that based on his character his sentence should be found

inappropriate because he accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, he had led

a law-abiding life for many years before his current crime, and he had minor

children who had been removed from his care due to this crime.

[7] “As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.”

Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In the present case,

Walls was convicted of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. The

advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a range of between six

months and two and a half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court

sentenced Walls to two and a half years with six months suspended to

probation.

[8] The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the

commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Croy v. State, 953

N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Here, Walls knowingly or intentionally

possessed methamphetamine. Although the amount of the drug he possessed

was evidently less than five grams since he was charged with a Level 6 felony,

this is already taken into consideration by the statute under which Walls was

charged. If he had possessed a larger amount, he would have been charged

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 4 of 5 accordingly with a higher offense. Additionally, the fact that the

methamphetamine was only for personal use was already considered in

charging Walls since he was only charged with possession and not dealing

methamphetamine.

[9] “The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life

and conduct.” Croy, 953 N.E.2d at 664. As to Walls’s character, he has a

lengthy criminal history, which consists of convictions for possession of

marijuana, driving while suspended, operating a vehicle while intoxicated,

possession of a controlled substance, theft, public intoxication, forgery, failure

to return to lawful detention, possession of stolen property, burglary, and

operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. Additionally, Walls was out

on bond when he committed the present offense. This lengthy criminal history

and the commission of additional crimes while out on bond demonstrate a lack

of respect for the law. Further, although Walls did plead guilty and take

responsibility for his actions, he already received a significant benefit because,

in exchange for his guilty plea, the State dismissed three other counts, which

included two other Level 6 felonies and one Class A misdemeanor. Based on

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, we conclude that

Walls’s sentence is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

[10] Affirmed.

[11] Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 5 of 5