Joshua G. Villanueva-Rose v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 12, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2413
• 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 Apr 12 2019, 10:31 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 Marielena Duerring Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua G. Villanueva-Rose, April 12, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2413 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jane Woodward Appellee-Plaintiff. Miller, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D01-1803-F3-21

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Joshua Villanueva-Rose (“Villanueva-Rose”) pled guilty to one count each of

Attempted Armed Robbery1 and Armed Robbery, as Level 3 felonies, and

Carrying a Handgun Without a License, as a Level 5 felony.2 He challenges his

twenty-three-year aggregate sentence as inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 26, 2018, Villanueva-Rose and another man approached Rachel

Osenkarski (“Osenkarski”) while she was sitting in her vehicle in a Walmart

parking lot. Villanueva-Rose asked for a cigarette; when Osenkarski attempted

to roll up her window, the second man, who was armed with a handgun,

jumped into the vehicle and demanded Osenkarski’s purse. She surrendered the

purse and the men fled to a waiting vehicle.

[3] Shortly thereafter, in a nearby parking lot, April Wieringa (“Wieringa”) was

sitting in her vehicle with her mother and three-year-old child. Wieringa was

attempting to activate her new cell phone when Villanueva-Rose approached

her. He first asked to use the phone and then asked for a lighter. Wieringa

replied that she was still setting up her phone and she did not smoke.

Villanueva-Rose then shot Wieringa in the chest and demanded that she give

1 Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1, 35-41-5-1. 2 I.C. § 35-47-2-1. The offense was elevated due to Villanueva-Rose’s status as a felon.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6 him “all her shit.” (App. Vol. II, pg. 10.) Wieringa responded that Villanueva-

Rose “wasn’t getting anything.” Id. She opened her car door and Villanueva-

Rose ran away.

[4] Villanueva-Rose was apprehended by police and admitted his involvement in

the incidents. He was charged with Armed Robbery, Attempted Armed

Robbery, Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Carrying a Handgun without a

License. On August 21, 2018, he entered pleas of guilty to each charged

offense. On September 19, 2018, the trial court declined to enter a judgment of

conviction on the battery count, due to double jeopardy concerns. The court

entered judgments of conviction on the remaining counts and sentenced

Villanueva-Rose to an aggregate sentence of twenty-three years (fourteen years

for Attempted Armed Robbery, consecutive to nine years for Armed Robbery,

and concurrent to a one-year sentence for the handgun offense). Villanueva-

Rose now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5, the sentencing range for a Level 3

felony is three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years.

Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6, the sentencing range for a Level 5

felony is one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years.

Villanueva-Rose argues that his aggregate twenty-three-year sentence is

inappropriate in light of his guilty plea, substance abuse issues, and difficult

childhood.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6 [6] We “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.” Ind.

Appellate Rule 7(B). We assess the trial court’s recognition or non-recognition

of aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the

sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2006). Here, the trial court recognized as aggravators the

circumstances of the Attempted Robbery (serious injury to the victim and

commission in the presence of a child) and that Villanueva-Rose was on

probation when he committed the instant offenses. In mitigation, the trial court

considered Villanueva-Rose’s decision to plead guilty and his difficult

[7] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate

sentence to the circumstances presented and the trial court’s judgment “should

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.

2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the

outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the

end of the day turns on “our sense of 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.” Id. at 1224. Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6 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).

[8] As to the nature of the offenses, Villanueva-Rose armed himself with a handgun

and approached women in parking lots with the intent of taking their property.

On the day of the crimes, Villanueva-Rose had ingested cocaine, heroin,

marijuana, and a half bottle of vodka. He shot one of the women in the chest

and did so in front of her mother and her small child. At the sentencing

hearing, Wieringa testified that she had been so severely injured that she could

not hug her children for almost a month. She further described having

persistent anxiety and flashbacks and observed that her child and mother had

exhibited signs of mental trauma from witnessing the shooting. In short, the

circumstances and effects of the crime were heinous.

[9] As to Villanueva-Rose’s character, the decision to plead guilty indicates some

acceptance of responsibility for his actions. However, he was on probation

when he committed the instant offenses, having been convicted of Strangulation

and Domestic Battery. In sum, Villanueva-Rose has failed to demonstrate that

his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his

character.

Conclusion [10] Villanueva-Rose’s twenty-three-year sentence is not inappropriate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 5 of 6 [11] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2413 | April 12, 2019 Page 6 of 6