Jeremy Lasalle Roy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 20, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1944
• 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 Dec 20 2018, 6:39 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kristin A. Mulholland Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Crown Point, Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeremy Lasalle Roy, December 20, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1944 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G01-1712-F4-42

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In June of 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jeremy Lasalle Roy pled guilty

to Level 4 felony burglary in this case and admitted to violating the terms of

probation imposed in another case. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss all

remaining counts in this case. The trial court sentenced Roy to ten years of

incarceration. Roy contends that his sentence is inappropriate in the light of the

nature of his offenses and his character. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 13, 2017, Kenyana Morson was home alone when she heard a

knock at the front door and noticed an unfamiliar car parked in the driveway.

Morson called her fiancé to ask if he was familiar with the car, he told her that

he was not and to call the police. As Morson called the police, Roy kicked the

back door in and entered the house. Morson hid in a closet as she remained on

the line with emergency dispatch and could hear Roy moving throughout the

house. When police arrived at the home, Morson ran outside and informed

them that the burglar was still inside. As Roy attempted to exit the house, he

was arrested by police.

[3] On December 14, 2017, the State charged Roy with Level 4 felony burglary and

Level 6 felony residential entry under cause number 45G01-1712-F4-42 (“Cause

No. F4-42”) and subsequently amended the information, alleging him to be a

habitual offender. On June 18, 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, Roy pled

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 5 guilty to Level 4 felony burglary and an agreed sentencing cap of nine years

with sentencing to be at the discretion of the court. Additionally, Roy admitted

to violating the terms of probation imposed in cause number 45G01-1211-FB-

107 (“Cause No. FB-107”) and agreed to a sentence of three years to be served

consecutive to his sentence in Cause No. F4-42. In exchange, the State agreed

to dismiss all remaining counts in Cause No. F4-42. On July 5, 2018, the trial

court sentenced Roy to seven years of incarceration in Cause No. F4-42 and

three years of incarceration in Cause No. FB-107, for an aggregate sentence of

ten years.

Discussion and Decision [4] Roy contends that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a

sentence 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “Sentencing is principally

a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive

considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)

(internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the burden of proving that his

sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his

character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Roy pled

guilty to a Level 4 felony burglary in Cause No. F4-42 and admitted to violating

the terms of probation in Cause No. FB-107 (which involved a burglary

conviction) and received an aggregate sentence of ten years of incarceration, a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 5 sentence that is less than the maximum possible sentence for a single Level 4

felony burglary conviction. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5.

[5] The nature of Roy’s offenses does not support a reduction in his sentence. Roy

kicked in the door causing property damage to the home, all while Morson was

present in the home. Morson had to hide in the closet as she spoke to

emergency dispatch until police arrived to provide protection. We find it

troubling that Roy committed the burglary by causing significant property

damage and while the victim was inside the home.

[6] Roy’s character also does not support a reduction in his sentence. The twenty-

eight-year-old Roy has a history with the juvenile and criminal justice systems

that dates back to an arrest at age twelve. As a juvenile, Roy was adjudicated

delinquent for what would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily

injury, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and two counts of

Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult. As an adult,

Roy has convictions for Class B felony burglary, Class C felony burglary, two

counts of Class D felony theft, and nine misdemeanors. Roy has also previously

violated the terms of probation. At the time of sentencing in this case, there was

an active warrant for Roy’s arrest issued out of Marion County. Despite his

many contacts with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, Roy has been

unwilling to conform his actions to societal norms.

[7] Roy claims that he is a “family man” and that he accepted responsibility for his

actions by pleading guilty. However, neither claim of good character is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 5 supported by the record. Roy lives in Gary while his child resides with the

child’s mother in Indianapolis, and Roy has not been court-ordered to pay any

child support. Moreover, Roy, who was arrested at the scene as he attempted to

leave the residence, made a pragmatic decision by pleading guilty because, in

exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the Level 6 felony residential entry charge

and the habitual offender allegation. See Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 212

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting that a guilty plea is not necessarily a mitigating

factor where the defendant receives a substantial benefit from it or where the

evidence is so strong the plea is merely a pragmatic decision), trans. denied. Roy

has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate in the light of both the

nature of his offense and his character.

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

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1944 | December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 5