Joseph L. Arrington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 31, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-766
• 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 Aug 31 2020, 8:11 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 Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana Steven Hosler Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joseph L. Arrington, August 31, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-766 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1811-F4-89

Brown, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 1 of 6 [1] Joseph L. Arrington appeals his sentence for two counts of dealing in cocaine

and asserts his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 22, 2018, Fort Wayne Police Detective John Greenlee worked with

a confidential informant to arrange a controlled buy from Arrington. On that

day, the confidential informant called Arrington and arranged to purchase

cocaine from him at a gas station in Fort Wayne. Detective Greenlee drove the

informant, who wore an electronic listening device, to the gas station, where the

informant stood in front of the station, smoked a cigarette, and waited for

Arrington. Detective Greenlee and other officers set up surveillance. Arrington

arrived at the gas station, exited his vehicle, walked toward a sidewalk with the

informant, and handed the informant cocaine, and the informant handed him

the buy money. The substance was later determined to contain cocaine and to

have a net weight of 1.12 grams.

[3] On September 6, 2018, Detective Greenlee and the confidential informant

arranged another controlled buy from Arrington. The informant contacted

Arrington, and they again agreed to meet at the gas station. Detective Greenlee

drove the informant to the gas station. Arrington arrived in a vehicle, the

informant exited Detective Greenlee’s vehicle, entered the rear seat of

Arrington’s vehicle, and gave the buy money to Arrington, and Arrington gave

him cocaine. The substance was determined to contain cocaine and to have a

net weight of 0.39 grams.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6 [4] The State charged Arrington with: Count I, dealing in cocaine as a level 4

felony; and Count II, dealing in cocaine as a level 5 felony. A jury found

Arrington guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found the impact on

Arrington’s family to be a mitigating factor. It found his criminal history to be

a highly aggravating factor, stated his two counts for false informing showed

disdain for law enforcement, found his escape from community supervision to

be aggravating, noted he had his parole, suspended sentences, and work release

placement revoked, and stated that prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed

and the facts and circumstances of the case were aggravating. The court

sentenced Arrington to twelve years with two years suspended to probation on

Count I and five years on Count II and ordered the sentences served

concurrently.

Discussion

[5] Arrington claims his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offenses and his character. He argues that prison serves no rehabilitative

purpose and does not provide him with appropriate treatment and that

imposition of the advisory sentence and placement in community corrections

would be a much more effective and appropriate sentence in addressing his

addictions and mental health issues.

[6] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character

of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6 the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[7] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person who commits a level 4 felony

shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years with the

advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person

who commits a level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between

one and six years with the advisory sentence being three years.

[8] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Arrington sold cocaine with

a net weight of 1.12 grams to a confidential informant working with law

enforcement on August 22, 2018, and sold cocaine with a net weight of 0.39

grams to the confidential informant on September 6, 2018.

[9] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that, according to the

presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Arrington stated he received Social

Security disability and suffers from breathing problems, hand tension problems,

shoulder problems, and panic attacks. He denied having ever been diagnosed

with any mental illnesses. With respect to substance abuse, Arrington reported

that he began using marijuana at twenty-two years of age, that he used once per

month until age forty-one, and that his last use was at age forty-seven. The PSI

states that Arrington denied the use of cocaine and all other illegal substances.

It states that he indicated he participated in substance abuse treatment while

incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction in 2000 and at Brown

and Associates in Fort Wayne in 2003.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [10] The PSI further reveals that Arrington, who was born in 1966, was given

informal adjustments as a juvenile for shoplifting, possession of stolen property,

assault and battery, and fleeing a police officer and was adjudicated delinquent

for assault and battery, truancy, burglary, gambling, and shoplifting. As an

adult, he was convicted of burglary as a class C felony in 1984, robbery as a

class C felony in 1985, operating without proof of financial responsibility as a

misdemeanor in 1992, burglary as a class C felony in 1993, possession of

cocaine or narcotic drug as a class D felony and possession of marijuana, hash

oil, or hashish and resisting law enforcement as class A misdemeanors in 2002,

false informing and unauthorized absence from home detention as

misdemeanors in 2004, escape as a class D felony in 2005, “Never Receive

License, Misdemeanor” in 2006, attempted possession of a controlled substance

by subterfuge as a class D felony and leaving the scene of an accident as a

misdemeanor in 2008, theft as a class D felony in 2011, “Resisting Law

Enforcement/Use of Vehicle” as a level 6 felony and false informing as a

misdemeanor in 2014, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor in

2017, and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor in 2019.

Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 23-24. The PSI states that Arrington has

had his parole revoked once, his suspended sentence revoked three times, his

work release placement revoked once, his probation revoked twice, his home

detention placement modified once, and his home detention placement revoked

once. The PSI also provides that Arrington’s overall risk assessment score

using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places him in the high risk to

reoffend category.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6 [11] After due consideration and in light of his criminal history, we conclude that

Arrington has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Arrington’s sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6