Joey Lee Offill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 21, 2018
• Docket: 58A01-1711-CR-2692
• 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 Aug 21 2018, 9:05 am the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joey Lee Offill, August 21, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 58A01-1711-CR-2692 v. Appeal from the Ohio Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Appellee-Plaintiff. Humphrey, Judge The Honorable Kimberly A. Schmaltz, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 58C01-1612-F5-7

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] On August 18, 2017, Joey Lee Offill pled guilty to Level 5 felony operating a

vehicle after having received a lifetime suspension. In sentencing Offill, the

trial court considered both his lengthy criminal history, consisting of thirty-nine

prior convictions and fifteen prior probation violations, and his claimed mental

deficiencies. The trial court imposed a five-year term of imprisonment. On

appeal, Offill contends that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] While on duty at approximately 3:30 a.m. on the morning of December 3,

2016, Ohio County Sheriff’s Deputy Colin English observed a vehicle

approaching that had a headlight out. Deputy English initiated a traffic stop

and identified Offill as the driver. During the traffic stop, Offill indicated that

he “hadn’t had his license in a long time.” Tr. p. 7.

[3] The State charged Offill with Level 5 felony operating a vehicle after having

received a lifetime suspension on December 5, 2016. On August 18, 2017,

Offill pled guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently imposed a five-year

executed sentence.

Discussion and Decision

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4 [4] Offill contends that his five-year sentence in inappropriate.1 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. 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).

[5] In this case, Offill chose to drive a vehicle despite knowing that his driving

privileges had previously been suspended for life. In fact, when pulled over,

Offill told Deputy English that “he hadn’t had a license in a long time.” Tr. p.

7. Offill’s vehicle only had one headlight when Deputy English initiated the

traffic stop at approximately 3:30 in the morning. Offill also smelled of

alcoholic beverage, appeared nervous, had a blood alcohol concentration of

.076, and had alcoholic beverages with him in the vehicle. Offill’s actions are

1 Although Offill’s brief references both the abuse of discretion and appropriateness standards of review, it only presents a cogent argument relating to the appropriateness standard. We will therefore limit our review accordingly.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4 troubling given his pattern of engaging in alcohol-related offenses, including

operating vehicles while intoxicated.

[6] As for Offill’s character, the record indicates that the trial court considered his

mental deficiencies but found that they paled in significance to his criminal

history. Offill had thirty-nine previous convictions and had violated the terms

of probation on fifteen prior occasions. Many of these convictions appear

related to alcohol abuse for which Offill has not sought treatment. In addition,

while out on bond awaiting resolution in this case, Offill was charged with

numerous additional crimes. These crimes included battery against his sister

and another individual. He was also found to be a “very high” risk to reoffend.

Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 16. Offill blames his criminal behavior on his

mental deficiencies but has nonetheless failed to follow through on prior

opportunities to receive mental health treatment. Given the nature of his

offense and his significant criminal history, Offill has failed to convince us that

his five-year sentence is inappropriate.

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

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4