Jeremy Streeval v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 4, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-626
• 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 Sep 04 2018, 9:26 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 R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana Kelly A. Loy Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeremy Streeval, September 4, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-626 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03D01-1710-F2-5617

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Jeremy Streeval appeals his sentence following his conviction for possession of

methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony. He presents a single issue for our

review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of

the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In 2017, Streeval was living in a house with several other people in Columbus.

In April of that year, Streeval’s neighbors complained to the Columbus Police

Department (“CPD”) that there was a “high volume of traffic” at the house at

“all hours of the night” and “lots of shots fired” there. Tr. Vol. 2 at 48-49.

Accordingly, Sergeant Toby Combest and other members of the Joint Narcotics

Enforcement Team (“JNET”) with the CPD began to surveille the house, and

they suspected that residents of the house were selling drugs. They also learned

that there were “a lot” of members of the Aryan Brotherhood gang “hanging

out” at the house. Id. at 52.

[3] On September 20, 2017, JNET conducted a controlled buy, and a confidential

informant bought heroin from Streeval at the house. And on October 3, a

confidential informant bought heroin from an unidentified man at the house.

Accordingly, JNET obtained a search warrant for the house, and they executed

the warrant on October 5. In the course of the search, officers found a

handgun, more than ten grams of methamphetamine, scales, and baggies.

Officers arrested Streeval at that time.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 [4] On October 11, the State charged Streeval with dealing in methamphetamine,

as a Level 2 felony; possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony; and

two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug, as Level 5 felonies. The State later

amended the information to include a habitual offender enhancement. On

January 17, 2018, Streeval executed a written plea agreement in which he

pleaded guilty to one count of possession in methamphetamine, as a Level 3

felony, and the State dismissed the other counts and the habitual offender

enhancement.

[5] The trial court accepted the guilty plea and entered judgment accordingly. At

sentencing, the court identified the following aggravators: Streeval’s criminal

history; that Streeval “has had opportunity for treatment outside of a penal

facility and has been unsuccessful”; and the “multiple petitions to revoke

probation” previously filed against him. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 83. The

court found no mitigators and sentenced Streeval to fifteen years executed.

This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Streeval asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and his character. As we have explained:

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana appellate court to “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.” We assess the trial court’s recognition or nonrecognition of aggravators and mitigators as an

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Robinson v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[7] Here, the trial court imposed a fifteen-year executed sentence, which is one year

shy of the maximum possible sentence for a Level 3 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-5 (2018). Regarding the nature of the offense, Streeval asserts that the

“harm and potential harm suffered as a result of [his] commission of possession

of methamphetamine did not exceed the anticipated scope of harm

contemplated by the legislature, thus, a nearly maximum sentence was not

appropriate.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. And regarding his character, he maintains

that it does not warrant “a nearly maximum sentence” given his “relatively

young age, lengthy untreated history of addiction, and societal support,” which

“all demonstrated motive and opportunity for [him] to turn his life around and

obtain the help he need[s].” Id. at 11. We address each contention in turn.

[8] At his guilty plea hearing, Streeval admitted that, in addition to possessing

methamphetamine, he also possessed a firearm. Possession of

methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony, does not include an element of

possession of a firearm. I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1. Further, at sentencing, Streeval

testified that, since 2012, he has supported himself by selling drugs. Thus,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Streeval possessed the methamphetamine while he possessed a firearm and sold

drugs for a living. Accordingly, we cannot say that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.

[9] As for his character, Streeval’s criminal history is significant, especially given

his age. Streeval accumulated eleven juvenile adjudications dating back to

1999, and his criminal history includes seven felonies and five misdemeanors.

Moreover, Streeval has violated probation multiple times, and he absconded

from work release twice. Finally, again, Streeval admitted that he has not been

employed since 2012, but he has supported himself by dealing drugs. We

cannot say that Streeval’s sentence is inappropriate in light of his character, and

we affirm his sentence.

[10] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5