MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 04 2020, 10:12 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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Jesse R. Drum Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Supervising Deputy Attorney Madison, Indiana General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Wall, June 4, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-19 v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey Sharp, Appellee-Plaintiff. Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-1808-F2-2
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Jeremy Wall (“Wall”) was convicted in Ripley Circuit Court of Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement.
Wall was ordered to serve an aggregate twenty-two-year sentence in the Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Department of Correction. Wall appeals and argues that 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] On July 11, 2018, Indiana State Police Trooper Jordan Craig observed Wall
driving a pick-up truck while Wall’s driving privileges were suspended. The
trooper told Wall he was not receiving a citation. Wall was very nervous during
the encounter. Shortly thereafter, the trooper learned that Wall was using and
dealing methamphetamine.
[4] On July 31, 2018, Trooper Craig saw Wall driving the same pick-up truck on a
county road. When the trooper turned his vehicle around to follow him, Wall
increased his speed. Trooper Craig turned on his emergency lights, but Wall did
not stop. As he pursued Wall, the trooper saw Wall’s passenger throw a black
lockbox from the truck onto the street. The box broke open on impact and its
contents, ten grams of methamphetamine, syringes, and other contraband,
spilled out onto the street. Trooper Craig was unable to apprehend Wall on that
date, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
[5] Three days later, Trooper Craig learned that Wall was hiding in a trailer in
Osgood, Indiana, and proceeded to that location to serve the arrest warrant.
Wall refused to come out of the trailer’s bathroom when law enforcement
officers ordered him to exit the trailer after informing him that there was a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 2 of 8 warrant for his arrest. Officers deployed a police canine to retrieve Wall, and he
resisted arrest. After he was apprehended, Wall admitted that the
methamphetamine, syringes, a controlled substance, and marijuana found in
the trailer belonged to him. Wall also admitted to dealing in methamphetamine
daily for thirty days prior to his arrest.1
[6] On August 6, 2018, Wall was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in
methamphetamine, Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony
resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, and
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The State also alleged that
Wall was an habitual offender.
[7] On October 16, 2019, the State and Wall entered into a plea agreement. Wall
agreed to plead guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level
6 felony resisting law enforcement in exchange for dismissal of the remaining
charges, including the habitual offender enhancement. The State and Wall
agreed that his aggregate sentence would not exceed twenty-five years. Wall’s
sentencing hearing was held on November 13, 2019, after which the trial court
took sentencing under advisement.
[8] On December 4, 2019, the trial court issued a written sentencing order
thoroughly explaining its reasons for imposing an aggregate twenty-two-year
sentence. The trial court considered Wall’s criminal history and that the
1 Wall filed a motion to suppress his confession, which the trial court denied on May 1, 2019.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 3 of 8 offenses were committed while he was on probation as significant aggravating
circumstances. The trial court also considered as aggravating that Wall was a
“significant source of methamphetamine” in Ripley County. The trial court
noted that Wall is highly likely to reoffend. The court considered Wall’s guilty
plea and cooperation with law enforcement after his arrest as mitigating
circumstances. After concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed
the mitigating circumstances, the trial court ordered Wall to serve concurrent
terms of twenty-two years for the dealing methamphetamine conviction and
910 days for the resisting law enforcement conviction.
[9] Wall now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [10] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he 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.” We must exercise deference to a trial court’s
sentencing decision because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due consideration to
that decision, and we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055, 1063 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling
evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as
accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s
character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good
character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 4 of 8 [11] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on
our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the
damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). The appropriate question is not
whether another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence
imposed is inappropriate. Rose, 36 N.E.3d at 1063.
[12] Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the principal role
of appellate 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, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. Our review under Rule 7(B) should focus
on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or
concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 04 2020, 10:12 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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Jesse R. Drum Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Supervising Deputy Attorney Madison, Indiana General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Wall, June 4, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-19 v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey Sharp, Appellee-Plaintiff. Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-1808-F2-2
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Jeremy Wall (“Wall”) was convicted in Ripley Circuit Court of Level 2 felony
dealing in methamphetamine and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement.
Wall was ordered to serve an aggregate twenty-two-year sentence in the Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Department of Correction. Wall appeals and argues that 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] On July 11, 2018, Indiana State Police Trooper Jordan Craig observed Wall
driving a pick-up truck while Wall’s driving privileges were suspended. The
trooper told Wall he was not receiving a citation. Wall was very nervous during
the encounter. Shortly thereafter, the trooper learned that Wall was using and
dealing methamphetamine.
[4] On July 31, 2018, Trooper Craig saw Wall driving the same pick-up truck on a
county road. When the trooper turned his vehicle around to follow him, Wall
increased his speed. Trooper Craig turned on his emergency lights, but Wall did
not stop. As he pursued Wall, the trooper saw Wall’s passenger throw a black
lockbox from the truck onto the street. The box broke open on impact and its
contents, ten grams of methamphetamine, syringes, and other contraband,
spilled out onto the street. Trooper Craig was unable to apprehend Wall on that
date, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
[5] Three days later, Trooper Craig learned that Wall was hiding in a trailer in
Osgood, Indiana, and proceeded to that location to serve the arrest warrant.
Wall refused to come out of the trailer’s bathroom when law enforcement
officers ordered him to exit the trailer after informing him that there was a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 2 of 8 warrant for his arrest. Officers deployed a police canine to retrieve Wall, and he
resisted arrest. After he was apprehended, Wall admitted that the
methamphetamine, syringes, a controlled substance, and marijuana found in
the trailer belonged to him. Wall also admitted to dealing in methamphetamine
daily for thirty days prior to his arrest.1
[6] On August 6, 2018, Wall was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in
methamphetamine, Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony
resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, and
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The State also alleged that
Wall was an habitual offender.
[7] On October 16, 2019, the State and Wall entered into a plea agreement. Wall
agreed to plead guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level
6 felony resisting law enforcement in exchange for dismissal of the remaining
charges, including the habitual offender enhancement. The State and Wall
agreed that his aggregate sentence would not exceed twenty-five years. Wall’s
sentencing hearing was held on November 13, 2019, after which the trial court
took sentencing under advisement.
[8] On December 4, 2019, the trial court issued a written sentencing order
thoroughly explaining its reasons for imposing an aggregate twenty-two-year
sentence. The trial court considered Wall’s criminal history and that the
1 Wall filed a motion to suppress his confession, which the trial court denied on May 1, 2019.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 3 of 8 offenses were committed while he was on probation as significant aggravating
circumstances. The trial court also considered as aggravating that Wall was a
“significant source of methamphetamine” in Ripley County. The trial court
noted that Wall is highly likely to reoffend. The court considered Wall’s guilty
plea and cooperation with law enforcement after his arrest as mitigating
circumstances. After concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed
the mitigating circumstances, the trial court ordered Wall to serve concurrent
terms of twenty-two years for the dealing methamphetamine conviction and
910 days for the resisting law enforcement conviction.
[9] Wall now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [10] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he 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.” We must exercise deference to a trial court’s
sentencing decision because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due consideration to
that decision, and we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055, 1063 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling
evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as
accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s
character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good
character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 4 of 8 [11] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on
our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the
damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). The appropriate question is not
whether another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence
imposed is inappropriate. Rose, 36 N.E.3d at 1063.
[12] Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the principal role
of appellate 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, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. Our review under Rule 7(B) should focus
on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or
concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual
count.” Id. And it is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848
N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[13] Wall was ordered to serve twenty-two years for his Level 2 felony dealing in
methamphetamine conviction. A person convicted of a Level 2 felony “shall be
imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the
advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (17 ½) years.” Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-4.5. He was ordered to serve a concurrent term of 910 days for his Level 6
felony resisting law enforcement conviction. A person convicted of a Level 6
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 5 of 8 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two
and one-half (2 ½) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” I.C. §
35-50-2-7. Wall’s twenty-two-year aggregate sentence is three years less than the
twenty-five-year cap bargained for in his plea agreement.2
[14] Considering the nature of his offenses, Wall argues that he did not harm any
person in the commission of his offenses, admitted that the contraband found
belonged to him, and confessed to dealing methamphetamine. Wall rightly
observes that his offenses could have been more severe. However, during the
commission of his offenses, he fled from law enforcement, hid for three days
until his location was discovered, and law enforcement had to deploy a K9 to
extract him from his hiding place. He cooperated with law enforcement only
after he was forcibly arrested.
[15] With regard to the character of the offender, Wall argues that his poor
childhood, guilty plea, cooperation with law enforcement, and drug abuse
warrant a downward revision of his sentence. Wall agreed to plead guilty after
his motion to suppress his confession to dealing in methamphetamine was
denied. And in exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the
habitual offender allegation. Wall’s cooperation with law enforcement and
2 In his brief, Wall argues that his sentence should be reduced to seventeen and one-half years with seven and one-half years suspended to probation. At the sentencing hearing, Wall argued that the trial court should impose a twenty-year sentence. Tr. p. 161.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 6 of 8 subsequent apology to the officer from whom he fled reflects well on his
character.
[16] But we must balance Wall’s cooperation and remorse against thirty-six-year-old
Wall’s criminal history. Wall’s prior offenses consist of a juvenile adjudication
and convictions for Class D felony theft, two Class D felony residential entry
convictions, Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a conviction
in Kansas for felony criminal threat, Class D felony possession of
methamphetamine, two misdemeanor battery convictions, and several
misdemeanor convictions for alcohol-related offenses. In 2015, Wall was
convicted of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and with
being an habitual offender.
[17] Wall was on probation for the battery offense when he committed the offenses
at issue in this appeal. As the trial court noted, Wall’s “criminal convictions
have escalated from misdemeanor offenses . . . to low-level felony convictions
such as theft, residential entry and possession of methamphetamine to the
current dealing in methamphetamine conviction. The system appropriately
responded with probation and short periods of incarceration followed by an
extended period of incarceration in 2015, yet Defendant continues to choose
this path.” Appellant’s App. pp. 121–22.
Conclusion [18] After considering the nature of the offense and his character, Wall has not met
his burden of persuading us that his sentence is an outlier that warrants
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 7 of 8 revision. For all of these reasons, we conclude that Wall’s twenty-two-year
aggregate sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
the character of the offender.
[19] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-19 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 8