Jesse Carter, IV v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 10, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-899
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Oct 10 2018, 9:54 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals 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 Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jesse Carter, IV, October 10, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-899 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 45G01-1602-F4-7 45G01-1602-F4-8

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-899 | October 10, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] After being alleged to have committed six different Level 4 felony burglaries

and numerous other criminal acts, Jesse Carter, IV, pled guilty to two of the

burglary charges. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss more than eleven

other charges and to cap Carter’s sentence at twelve years. The trial court

accepted Carter’s guilty plea and sentenced him to an aggregate twelve-year

sentence. Carter challenges his sentence on appeal, arguing that it is

inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 27, 2015, the State charged Carter under Cause Number 45G01-

1602-F4-7 (“Cause No. F4-7”) with five counts of Level 4 felony burglary, two

counts of Level 4 felony attempted burglary, and three counts of Level 5 felony

attempted burglary. On February 17, 2016, the State charged Carter under

Cause Number 45G01-1602-F4-8 (“Cause No. F4-8”) with Level 4 felony

burglary and Level 6 felony residential entry. The parties entered into a

stipulated plea agreement on January 11, 2018.

[3] Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the State amended the charging

information in Cause No. F4-7 to include an additional Level 4 felony burglary

charge. Carter agreed to plead guilty to this added charge. He also agreed to

plead guilty to Level 4 felony burglary in Cause No. F4-8. In exchange for

Carter’s plea, the State agreed to dismiss all remaining charges and to dismiss

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-899 | October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 5 charges in a third cause number altogether. The parties agreed to a twelve-year

sentencing cap.

[4] The trial court conducted a guilty plea hearing during which Carter admitted

that on August 4, 2015, he broke into five different dwellings with the

“intention to commit the felony of theft while [he was] inside.” Guilty Plea Tr.

pp. 7–8. He also admitted that on January 27, 2016, he broke into a dwelling

with the “intention to commit the felony of theft once [he was] inside.” Guilty

Plea Tr. p. 9. The trial court accepted Carter’s guilty plea and sentenced him to

six-year terms for each of the burglaries and ordered that the sentences be

served consecutively.

Discussion and Decision [5] Carter contends that his aggregate twelve-year sentence is inappropriate.

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate

less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or

hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the

offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about

the defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-899 | October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 5 denied). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is

inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[6] In pleading guilty, Carter admitted that he committed six 1 burglaries and to

stealing property from each victim. In arguing that his sentence is

inappropriate, Carter classifies his offenses as “not exceptionally egregious.”

Appellant’s Br. p. 9. We observe that the trial court did not treat the offenses as

egregious, sentencing Carter to an advisory six-year term for each of the

burglaries. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (“A person who commits a Level 4

felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12)

years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.”). Carter has failed to

establish that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses.

[7] As for his character, Carter argues that he is a family man, an active participant

in raising his two children, and a hard worker. Carter also argues that his guilty

plea reflects well on his character as it demonstrates that he has accepted

responsibility for his actions. One may reasonably assume, however, that

Carter’s guilty plea was as much a pragmatic decision as an acceptance of guilt

as he significantly limited his potential criminal exposure by pleading guilty to

the two burglaries. In addition, his criminal history involves other crimes of

dishonesty and demonstrates a continued disregard for both the property of

1 The charge to which Carter pled in Cause No. F4-7 included each of the five previously charged burglaries. By pleading to this one count, Carter admitted to committing each of the five burglaries.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-899 | October 10, 2018 Page 4 of 5 others and the laws of this State. Carter has failed to persuade us that his

aggregate twelve-year sentence is inappropriate.

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

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-899 | October 10, 2018 Page 5 of 5