Kyla Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 16, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-3149
• 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 Jul 16 2019, 10:07 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana – Appellate Division Evan Matthew Comer Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kyla Taylor, July 16, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-3149 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David M. Hooper, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1806-CM-19620

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Kyla Taylor (“Taylor”) pleaded guilty in Marion Superior Court to Class A

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court sentenced

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Taylor to 365 days, with two days credit time and 363 days suspended. The trial

court ordered 180 days of non-reporting probation. Taylor appeals and argues

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

character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In November 2017, Taylor purchased a handgun for personal protection. Tr. p.

9. She worked in adult entertainment and frequently encountered harassment

from customers after her shift ended. Id. She did not obtain a handgun permit.

Id. at 6.

[3] On June 18, 2018, Taylor lent her phone to a group of men at a gas station. Id.

at 9. She did not know the men and was unaware that the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department was searching for the men in connection with

a stolen vehicle. Id., Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police arrived at the scene

while Taylor was standing next to the stolen vehicle and wanted men.

Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police detained and searched Taylor. Id. She told

the police that she had a handgun in her purse and stated she had never

attempted to obtain a permit. Id. The police confirmed Taylor did not have a

valid handgun permit and placed her under arrest. Id.

[4] Taylor was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of Class A

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Id. at 16. The trial court

gave the following sentencing statement:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Well, this is difficult. I understand how seriously the State takes its gun charges. And, requesting some sort of probation makes sense. I completely understand the defendant’s story. . . She just should have got [sic] a permit. . . She has no criminal history and she’s obviously indigent. I don’t think she’s likely to reoffend. . . We’re just going to make sure, Ms. Taylor, yeah, that you are not going to reoffend; okay? So there’s going to be time hanging over your head if you violate non-reporting probation for six months…[A]ll you’ve got to do is not get in trouble.

Tr. pp. 12–13. The trial court sentenced Taylor to 365 days, with two days

credit time and 363 days suspended. Id. at 13. She was also given 180 days of

non-reporting probation. Id. The trial judge ordered Taylor’s handgun returned

to her as long as she could legally carry the gun. Id. at 14. Taylor now appeals,

arguing her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender.

Discussion and Decision [5] Appellate courts may revise a sentence if the court finds the sentence is

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

offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The question is whether the defendant’s

sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence is more appropriate.

King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The principal role of

Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers” rather than to “achieve a perceived ‘correct’

result[.]” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Appellate courts

thus conduct Rule 7(B) sentencing review with substantial deference to the trial

court’s sentencing decision. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Taylor argues that her sentence is inappropriately harsh because the trial court

imposed the maximum allowable sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 6. A defendant

convicted of a Class A misdemeanor faces a maximum term of incarceration for

one year. Ind Code § 35-50-3-2. Taylor was sentenced to 365 days.

[6] In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may consider

all aspects of a defendant’s sentence, including whether a portion of the

sentence is suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).

[7] Although Taylor received a 365-day sentence, 363 days were suspended, and

she spent a single day in jail. In regard to the nature of the offense, we cannot

conclude that a serving a single day in jail is an inappropriately harsh sentence

for carrying an unlicensed handgun in violation of the law. In regard to the

nature of the offender, the trial court noted that Taylor has no adult criminal

history and is unlikely to reoffend. Although the suspended sentence leaves

open the possibility that Taylor could serve the full term of her sentence, a

combination of a suspended sentence and probation can serve as an incentive to

encourage good behavior. See Jennings v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1003, 1008–09 (Ind.

2003). As long as Taylor does not reoffend, she will have served a single day of

jail time. A 365-day sentence with 363 days suspended and six months of non-

reporting probation is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and

the character of the offender.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5 [8] Affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5